BS: At last a Pope talks some sense

Subject: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 09:41 AM

It's about time that an important bloke like the Pope spoke out about the stupid equality laws made by this labour government (???).

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 09:48 AM

You referring this THIS load of horseshit, Bozo?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,LTS on the sofa
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 10:00 AM

So it's natural for men to live separately and not have intimate contact with other humans or procreate then.... (or sex if you prefer the earthier version)

Makes me wonder if I shouldn't start stockpiling Celestial Brownie Points and prepare for the Apocolypse....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 10:31 AM

Absolutely, LTS - all this talk of The Natural Law sounds like Owd Ratty's carrying on his Hitler Youth indoctrinations into his dotage. Still, if Bozo supports this sort of stuff it makes sense of some of his other pronouncements in recent months. Ho hum...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 10:38 AM

"...the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs."

Don't worry, your popeness....no one can force you to be rational. However, they 'might' just have some input on who you impose irrationality on.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: theleveller
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 10:51 AM

Oh stop trying to be provocative, Uncle Boko - just because they won't let you play the troll on the Beeb Messageboard, there's no need to come over here and do it. We know it's all an act.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 10:58 AM

Of course he is talking sonse. He is, after all, the voice of God on earth.

Now, where did I but that ironic smiley...

:D (eG)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: theleveller
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 10:59 AM

...oh, and I'll tell Auntie Boko what you said. She'll probably make you scrub the kitchen floor again and clean behind the fridge.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Amergin
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 11:01 AM

What do you expect of a Nazi?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 11:53 AM

Methinks he (and the other clowns) feel equality doesn't sit well with bigotry.

Nobody says you have to change your weird misogynist views, just don't say that somebody cannot apply for a job based on their lifestyle. Mind you, I have gay friends who are also church goers.   Now, I cannot comment on belief because I fail to understand the fascination with having an imaginary friend, but to attend a church when church leaders think you are inferior... That takes a sense of belief beyond my reckoning.

No, let him sit in his palace whilst his multitudes starve. I was sickened by what I saw in many latin American places where people are on the bread line whilst the church in the middle of town is ornate, wonderful and the priest well fed.

he isn't in a position to preach to anybody, least of all a secular society. Anyway, Henry VIII declared the Pope cannot interfere with British law and that is fine by me!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 12:30 PM

Kind of ironic for the Pope to complain about a law that forces the Catholic Church to employ gay people, and to call it a violation of natural law. Seems like that horse has left the barn already.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 12:51 PM

Any English lawyers on the Mudcat? Is the Statute of Praemunire still on the books? This, I think, dates back to Richard II and was used by Henry VIII (of course) to some effect! It appears to state that it is a criminal offence to obey a foreign power or government above that of England. The Pope is not only the head of the Catholic Church but the representative of such a power, the Vatican. So arrest all those bishops etc and try them for treason.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 01:34 PM

OK, equality - an aquaintance of mine used to work for the police on the admin side. A woman was employed as an audio typist - must have equality - just one snag - she was deaf - must have equality - and therefore useless in the job which requires listening to a voice through headphones - must have equality!!!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 01:51 PM

Crikey Bonzo - the Pope must be right, then..

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 07:30 PM

Ah well. It's nice to have proof that Brown is doing something right.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 07:39 PM

Well.....I think this is one discussion I'll stay out of.
I liked it better when the Catholic Church had an unofficial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on homosexuality. The churches just aren't ready to deal with the issue of homosexuality rationally - so I think it's better right now if they don't say anything until society sorts itself out. Still, I'm not sure I like government telling churches who they can and cannot employ.

-Joe Catholic-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: PoppaGator
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 08:06 PM

I usually make it a point not to agree with the Pope, but on this point I agree absolutely.

No government has any business dictating to a Church who may or may not be ordained to their priesthood or ministry, rabbinate, etc. An official of any institution should be expected to share that institution's values and beliefes, surely.

Now, in the case of an individual gay guy who wants to be a priest, I'd ask him why in hell he would want to burrow inside an institution that condemns his very nature? And then I would advise him to look into the Episcopal Church of the US.

I suppose I can try to understand why someone born and raised within a particular religious tradition would want to "stay home" within said church, but at some point you need to recognize that while you may have changed, the church is not changing ~ or if so, not much and not quickly at all.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 10:09 AM

I am going to assume PoppaGator and Joe Offer are intelligent people and are not purposefully misrepresenting the new law.

This is not about ordaining as priests. Anybody can tell that such a calling does need some form of belief in what you are doing. After all, the pay is a stip' rather than a salary to acknowledge it is as much public office as employment.

This is about employment. To say you don't like being told who you can and can't employ is missing the point somewhat. it is not about who you can't employ as much as ensuring you do not refuse to employ somebody who is capable and willing regarding the job in hand but has a feature about them that is nothing to do with the job, but goes against your prejudice.

If a cleaner / accountant / lawyer / electrician / architect / office worker / whatever happens to be gay or a woman, that has no bearing on their ability to perform the task. The churches want to opt out of this. Why?

Suppose I decide I won't shortlist anybody with a beard or wears sandals and ask the government to give me a clause to do so. What is the ruddy difference.

(I do have a beard by the way. But there again, sadly, we are finding some catholic priests are neither celibate, heterosexual or indeed law abiding.....)

Anyway, this Pope isn't one to talk about equality. He sits in his palace whilst catholics starve, and as far as discrimination is concerned, I am sure he learned a lot during his membership of a youth organisation many years ago.....

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 11:59 AM

"What do you expect of a Nazi? "

Are referring to Bonzo/Boko there, or to the pope?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: eddie1
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 12:06 PM

I always liked Billy Connolly's line to the effect that he had read that the Roman Catholic Church didn't mind homosexuals as long as they weren't practising. "Funny", he said, "that's just the way I feel about Roman Catholics!"

Eddie

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 04:07 PM

From an article in todays Times, written by Lord Johnathan Sachs, Chief Rabbi of UHCC.

The preface to his article sums up my stance on the issues we have been discussing.

"The Pope is right about the threat to freedom
We may not agree with the Vatican line on homosexuality. But the State is trampling on our rights as individuals.
There are times when human rights become human wrongs. This happens when rights become more than a defence of human dignity, which is their proper sphere, and become instead a political ideology, relentlessly trampling down everything in their path. This is happening increasingly in Britain, and it is why the Pope's protest against the Equality Bill, whether we agree with it or not, should be taken seriously."
article

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 04:18 PM

Perhaps the meaning of the term "liberal fascists", which has puzzled so many for so long, has become a little more apparent?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 04:47 PM

I don't see any threat to freedom in anti-discrimination laws. No-one is being told who they can and cannot employ. The RC church already employs more homosexuals than their fair share, or so it would appear, and defies the law regularly to obscene lengths by aiding and abetting the revolting crimes of many of its members regardless of sexual preference. His protest is no more than a sick, attention seeking PR exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 04:51 PM

I think the above post by Smokey, is exactly what the Rabbi was alluding to.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 05:12 PM

Just to make it even more clear for Joe and PoppaGator (I accept that Bonzo is beyond reason) the UK is not dictating to any organisation who it may and may not employ. It is outlawing discrimination. Some people here might not appreciate the distinction but the courts will understand.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 05:28 PM

As long as they are taxed the same as any other business they should obey the same laws as any other business.

Stipends, cars, property etc. should be taxed too. If they make charitable donations they should get a tax credit like any other business.

Those who give, get a break. If the church gives they get a break too.

Anything more than these charitable tax exemptions, such as property tax free, etc. is obscene, perverse and absurd.

Who do they think they are?

AIG?

I guess they do offer a kind of insurance policy that can never be proven if the church paid out or not.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 05:33 PM

Maybe Parliment should pass a pedophilia tax just for the church since they are still allowed to get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 05:44 PM

I think they are exempt from tax as long as they don't engage in political activity.. Hmm..

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 06:00 PM

From the article cited in the second post, I couldn't get a clear understanding of the proposed legislation, or of the Pope's position.

The issue has come up in the United States, and generally religious organizations have been granted a exemption from anti-discrimination laws when hiring employees who have a religious function. If a church teaches that homosexuality is wrong, then I suppose perhaps it shouldn't be compelled to hire a homosexual religion teacher. I'd think that a large Catholic hospital should be compelled to employ anyone who is qualified for most positions, but should a Catholic hospital be allowed to refuse to hire a doctor who performs abortions, if those abortions are performed at another location? What about hiring a church secretary/receptionist who is not a member of the congregation?

It's not an easy question to answer, because "faith-based" organizations depend on having a staff that has a shared religious experience. I volunteer at a nonsectarian women's center that is run by two Catholic nuns. We generally do not employ religious fundamentalists (particularly not Catholic fundamentalists), because they would not approve of some of the things we do to help our clients.

"My" nuns belong to a religious order that operated a Catholic high school in Sacramento until the school closed last year. The school hired a drama coach who had done volunteer work at a clinic run by Planned Parenthood, and that clinic performs abortions. One family in the school raised a stink, and the bishop of Sacramento ordered the school to terminate the drama coach. The nuns did so, reluctantly, giving the coach severance pay to cover the six months remaining in the school year (they billed the bishop for the severance pay, but I don't think he paid). Later, the nuns expelled the family that had raised such a stink in this and other matters over a number of years.

What's happening in the Catholic Church is that an organized movement of conservative lay people, is forcing the Church's hand on a number of issues, and the bishops end up enforcing the letter of the law - even when it violates our principles of compassion. That's what has happened to our "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Of course, the "don't ask, don't tell" practice had the (probably unintended) side effect of protecting priests who were suspected of child molestation. The child molestation scandal has forced bishops to enforce the rules far more strictly, and the conservatives have taken advantage of this change to further their agenda.

Our diocese had a priest who is a brilliant man with a dynamic personality, a gifted musician. He worked in the bishop's office as director of liturgy for the diocese, and he lived with his (male) lover. We had a progressive bishop who ignored the priests living situation; but then we got a new, conservative bishop. The new bishop ordered the priest to break off his relationship, and the priest refused and left the priesthood. Now the former priest is working as a lay employee in a parish as music director. He was replaced in the diocesan job by a layman who was so-so; and now that guy has been replaced by a lay woman whom I like very much - but we went for about five years without a good liturgy director for the diocese, and that was a problem.

So, it's messy.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 06:32 PM

Look, it's very simple. Should vile bigots be entitled to refuse to hire people who can do the job, because of the bigotry?

What will come next? Protection from prosecution from enforced clitorectomies because of a religious belief in such mutilation?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 06:38 PM

Well, ya know, Richard, that's a little strong...

Taboos against homosexuality have existed in many (perhaps most) cultures forever. Those taboos are dropping away, but I think it's a little strong to put the label of "vile bigotry" on those who have not yet relinquished the taboos.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 06:45 PM

Why do conservatives reject compassion? Is it Intolerence that is the leading doctine? Should the church follow or lead conservative intolerence?

Maybe the church should support conservatives on every issue across the board by merely bringing back blasphemy laws and traditional punishments and/or enforcments.
That way all the blasphemers, demons, heretics and unbelievers will be cast out and eliminated, leaving a heaven on Earth for the faithful to fight Satan and his army.
Putting the question upon people today however should not be called an inquisition. The test of faith can be called somthing a bit brighter such as "a quiz of faith".

Currently there are about 6 Goverment agencies that you can use to make annonymous accusations that require no substantiation that will cost the accused thousands of dollars to defend against and an inordinate amount of time denying. Punishing the unbeliever in the wallet makes conservatives smile.

But punishing these tolerant compassionate heretics who disobey some segment or all of the conservative dogma, could go far beyond the wallet. Perhaps it should include torture or even advance to the point that the Shia and Sunnis now use to prove the superiority of God's word. Bomb the HELL out of each other.

Tongue and cheek my ass. It is always the conservatives who are first to throw the rehetorical bombs like Glen Beck or Rev Dobson and say things like "THEY are leading you to be exterminated! You must arm yourself and strike them down first!"

I have noticed that Roman Catholics I encounter today are much more likely to seek vengence than the understanding I expected in the past from Jesuits. And even they weren't all that damn understanding..

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 06:55 PM

"Taboos against homosexuality have existed in many (perhaps most) cultures forever"

No they haven't. Intolerance of homosexuality is an invention of the church.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 07:06 PM

I have a dream that someday somebody can bring up a religious leader such as the Pope, and not have the thread rapidly devolve into a hatefest about how horrible all religion is.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 07:10 PM

Hmmm....there's hope for you yet mousey.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 07:12 PM

Coming from you, Ake, that really...

scares me.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 07:15 PM

and not just against religion, but against any alternative view to the "liberal" orthodoxy.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 07:17 PM

"Puir wee cowrin' timerous beastie"   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 07:24 PM

Is liberal fundamentalist a contradiction in terms?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 07:40 PM

Joe, the Greeks celebrated homosexuality and heterosexuality alike. On what exactly are you basing your touching belief that homosexuality has been taboo in most cultures forever? (I can see that if your belief were well founded it would give you the feeble defencce that "we are not the only bigots.")

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 07:52 PM

"the Greeks celebrated homosexuality and heterosexuality alike

So did the Romans. There is more than ample evidence of that in the Vatican library, which houses the word's largest collection of written pornography. Unfortunately it's all in Latin, and the wee devil sitting on my shoulder whispering in my ear says that the pages are probably all stuck together as well, but being a gentleman I would never say such a thing. I apologise unreservedly for his bad taste.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 08:04 PM

I remember learning somewhere that the Romans viewed the Greeks with distaste for the homosexuality thing. "The Greek Vice" they called it. I don't remember (augh!) where I read this. But I'm not sure the blanket approbation of homosexuality was as universal as has been here averred.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 08:36 PM

I wouldn't call it approbation - just absence of taboo.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 10:26 PM

Plato also speaks of "barbarians" looking askance on homosexuality (which he of course rhapsodizes at length). So there must have been some lands known to him which weren't so sanguine.

I'm not trying to make any "this is wrong / this is right" arguments, just show that "everybody in the world liked homosexuality until the Christians came along" kind of bullshit is overstated. Although there are people who have a vested interest in believing that all the world's ills come from Christianity. Nothing you say will convince them otherwise.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 10:48 PM

It's overstated now; no-one said that. The present day western taboo, or what's left of it, comes from the church.

Incidentally, the Vatican porn collection appears to be a myth. I apologise for that. The material certainly exists though. There isn't much that the Romans didn't get up to.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 11:08 PM

For the sake of balance, it should be noted that the Christian movement did in fact introduce some much needed moral standards into Roman society. The rest is history..

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 11:35 PM

Well, the examples of Greece and Rome were brought up to counter this statement of mine: Taboos against homosexuality have existed in many (perhaps most) cultures forever.

Much of what is now considered acceptable in the culture of Europe and (to an extent) North America, is unacceptable in African and Arab cultures - which were not significantly influenced by Christian churches until recently. So, it seems unfair to say that opposition to homosexuality is primarily or exclusively a Christian taboo. As to the origins of the taboos of Europe and America, were they from the churches, or were they indigenous taboos that were assumed by the churches?

The fact of the matter is that many, many ethnic groups have had longstanding taboos against homosexuality. I happen to agree with the need to do away with those taboos, but I question the wisdom of condemning those who still hold to their cultural upbringing. To what extent is it ethical for us to impose our "enlightened" modern thinking on others who hold onto cultural practices that have existed for centuries, or even millennia?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: 3refs
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 11:39 PM

Let's remember that some rather important people from some other religious institutions didn't necessarily outright disagree with him. I'm pretty sure that in Texas, they refer to it as "The Ole Texas Two Step"!
I think another institution that's watching this closely may be the Masons. "No atheist can become a member of a Freemasonry Lodge. Masons do not care what your individual faith is ­ that is a question between you and your God - but we do require that a man believe in a Supreme Being". What do they do about this one?
It just about sums me up with two words; Dignity and Respect! Everyone deserves nothing less until they've done something that goes against or offends my own unique set of morals, values and spirituality. I'd suggest that not many people share identical beliefs with me or with anyone else on the planet.
I don't think I'm a bigot or racist at heart, but I admit I've told all the jokes and said the worst words one can say about another. Sometimes I feel guilty, and other times I feel justified because of something they have done or said. That aside, I'm a "Male Chauvanist Pig-First Class"!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 11:49 PM

Let's remember that some rather important people from some other religious institutions didn't necessarily outright disagree with him. I'm pretty sure that in Texas, they refer to it as "The Ole Texas Two Step"!

I always thought that meant diarrhea!

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: 3refs
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 11:50 PM

That too!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:00 AM

When I joined the Masons no-one asked whether I was then or ever had been homosexual or practised homosexuality. I infer that the official line is not bigoted. However many many of the masons I met until I ceased attending and became a country member were great ones for politically incorrect jokes of all kinds including anti-gay so I infer that the on the floor position is different.

As for churches and kings, the root of the present Ugandan hate-fest lies largely it would seem in the local beatification of a number of page-boys who refused the advances of a medieval king of Uganda - I forget his name, something the third...

So we can say that homosexuality was then known in Uganda and possibly most of Africa. It is widely said that it was a frequent practice in Egypt too.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 12:50 PM

Bisexuality seems to have been common and acceptable in most pre-christian societies. There was certainly far less polarisation than there is today, and I think that is due to the influence of the church.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 02:29 PM

Joe, I'm afraid that Robert Mugage, one of the most violently homophobic Africans of all, is a catholic. On a slightly more serious note, I've never been aware of any campaign to blame the Christians. The Sodom and Gomorrah yarn comes from the OLD testament.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 02:44 PM

Yeah, but it seems that the root of African opposition to homosexuality pre-date the advent of Christianity in Africa. And while there is evidence that homosexuality was acceptable in some groups all over the world and all through history, there also was evidence of widespread opposition to homosexuality - opposition that did not necessarily come from religious roots.

And the point I was trying to make, is that perhaps it's a little strong to label those who oppose homosexuality as "vile bigots." If we wish to end prejudice against homosexuality, I would think a gentler and more understanding approach might be more effective. The roots of homophobia run deep.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 04:04 PM

The roots of homophobia run deep.

The same could be said of racism, sexism and any other form of bigotry, which could be argued to be endemic in our very humanity - so what the hell, eh? OR we could recognise that it's personal prejudice, the roots of which run no deeper than that the rotten heart of the bigoted who will forever seek the reasons to excuse their witless prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:20 PM

OK, Joe, perhaps we should allow some leeway for those still living in the dark ages and agree that where homophobia survives in the educated world it is then "vile bigotry"?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 07:23 PM

The only bigotry I see here is bigotry against truth.
The health figures, especially the latest set from UNAIDS prove that homosexual practice is unsafe and unhealthy.
I have argued against the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy right from the start.
I do not hate or fear homosexuals, but in general I believe that homosexuals are not ammending their behaviour in light of a whole series of health statistics which calculate that homosexuals are at least 50 times more likely to contract hiv/aids than heterosexuals.

Like the US president, I dont believe in homosexual marriage, as it seeks to redefine marriage to accomodate homosexual practice and forces ordinary people who have religious faith to accept something which most of them fundamentally disagree with.

If I am a vile bigot for expressing my views, then Mr Obama, hero of the "liberal left" must also be a vile bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 07:59 PM

homosexuals are at least 50 times more likely to contract hiv/aids than heterosexuals

We should perhaps try to understand how they might feel about that.. Being homosexual doesn't make a person unthinking or uncaring.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:04 PM

Besides, it shouldn't really matter in the priesthood; they're supposed to be celibate. I see no reason why it should matter which gender they're not having sex with.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:08 PM

I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:10 PM

Gosh, she's a beauty.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:23 PM

FIND YER OWN, PERVERT!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:27 PM

Does she have a little sister?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:28 PM

I suspect Africa is a big place (never made it there) , with different cultural influences, and history:)
But, consider this quote....which relates to the influence of Christianity and colonization on at least some of Africa:

"....an African tradition of homosexuality can be found if you know where to look. There is a lot of data ( on that) as well as proof from our languages. When the Christians came, they demonized it. In Uganda, Father Lourdel from France brainwashed our forefathers by teaching them that homosexuality is evil. They had no problem with it before that. The British came later and criminalized it. It was not an issue before that. By doing this both the European Christians and colonialists brought homophobia to a continent that was clean of it. Africa embraced it and everything that the 'masters' brought. To date we still suffer the effects. It makes me sick that our leaders know about this history and yet they will go ahead and make such misleading remarks. We need to remind them of that history."

Victor Juliet Mukasa, activist with the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), focusing on the East, Central and Horn regions of Africa.

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Out_in_Africa-7002.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:33 PM

LOL, Smokey.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:36 PM

"homosexual practice is unsafe and unhealthy"
Possibly true....I am not sure of that.

But, does unhealthy and unsafe lifestyles justify discrimination? If so, I suspect there are very many folks out there with less healthy and safe lifestyles (than others) that we could discriminate against...I am sure most of us you can bring up a few.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:38 PM

Is it a girlie sheep, or a guy sheep? Be careful what you covet:)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:45 PM

I think that question's for you, Smokey.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:47 PM

Well if you can't tell the difference...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 09:18 PM

.....what's it matter?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 09:20 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:42 AM

Oh well, let's have damn good laugh about it, eh? What a fucking hoot. Ten years ago my cousin was murdered for being gay. So here we're being asked to understand such homophobia, even have sympathy with it because the roots of homophobia run deep. The roots of all evil run deep; the more we indulge them, the deeper they run because no roots are deeper than our lives and freedoms in the here and now.

Joe Offer - in a recent PM you said that I disgusted you for defending MtheGM's right to call me a cunt in an open forum. One is reminded of Kurtz's famous line from Apocalypse Now: We train young men to drop fire on people, yet their commanders won't allow them to write fuck on their airplanes because it's obscene. And again, to paraphrase Apocalypse Now: Oh man... the bullshit piled up so fast on Mudcat, you needed wings to stay above it.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 09:09 AM

"His strongly-worded intervention in British politics comes after leaders of both the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England clashed with Labour over its flagship Equality Bill, which they fear will make them admit homosexuals to the priesthood or face prosecution for discriminating against them."

Am I missing something here? The Catholic Church has been admitting homosexuals to the priesthood from its inception.

I'm not sure, but I doubt that a candidate for the priesthood would even be questioned about his sexual orientation.

The CC requires chastity, appropriate to one's station in life, from all its members, the Church would say that God requires it.

The article seems to have been written by a non-Catholic or a very ignorant Catholic.

The BBC makes similar gaffes regularly.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 12:01 PM

Beeliner, what specifically was the BBC's gaffe in this case? Your post doesn't make it clear.

If I am a vile bigot for expressing my views, then Mr Obama, hero of the "liberal left" must also be a vile bigot.

I'm afraid that doesn't follow, Ake. I'm not particularly a fan of Obama's but I detect no homphobia in anything he's said or done. In particular I accept that it is possible to argue against same-sex marriages without being homophobic.

Homosexuality is a condition, just as manic depression (bipolar disorder) is a condition. Because bipolar disorder is passed on genetically, advances in genetic science could soon allow it to be eradicated from humankind. But though I don't mind it being controlled I would not want to see it eradicated. Likewise, unlike Ake, I would hate to see homosexuality eradicated in the unlikely event of that becoming a possibility.

Both conditions contribute enormously to the richness of human life, evidenced by the fact that both are disproportionately represented in the world's intellectual elite and in the creative arts.

Much of the homophobia in Africa is among uneducated people who have been exploited and manipulated for generations by missionaries, their own shamans, witch doctors, etc. Such hostility is founded in ignorance. But there can be no such excuse for Ake's prejudice and Joe's head-in-the-sand "neutrality" (witness Joe's yearning for that odious so-called compromise of "don't ask, don't tell"). For me both attitudes are utterly inexcusable.

As an aside, I have to say it beggars believe that a church which has put so much money and effort into the abuse of children would presume to lecture any democracy on sexual morality.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,LTS on the sofa
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 12:22 PM

"The health figures, especially the latest set from UNAIDS prove that homosexual practice is unsafe and unhealthy.
I have argued against the promotion of homosexuality as safe and healthy right from the start."

The above argument just doesn't fly.

I'm pretty sure that children in Africa, born with HiV/Aids are not practicing anything, homosexual or not. The major problem with the spread of AIDS in heterosexual communities is the refusal to wear a condom because of its contraceptive properties or the lack of supply of such items.


LTS

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 12:35 PM

"Beeliner, what specifically was the BBC's gaffe in this case? Your post doesn't make it clear."

Peter, I didn't hear their coverage, if any, of this specific case. It was more a general statement.

I lived in Germany for over eight years and BBC radio and TV were my main sources of news in English.

During that time, I can remember various points of Catholic doctrine on several issues being misstated rather badly, and I am not alleging any deliberate misrepresentation on their part, only that whoever wrote the reports should have been careful in their research.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 12:45 PM

Peter...How can you possibly contend that the "Church" encourages child abuse? Surely that could never be in the interests of the church.
Each case of child abuse is personal to the priest who carried out the assault. Where the "Church was at fault, was in attempting to cover up the abuse when it had been reported....no doubt about that, it was a cynical and cruel form of self preservation.
The Church is also at fault in hanging on to the celibacy rule, which is certain to attract people with sexual problems into the priesthood.

I would also like to know why you catagorise me as a "vile bigot", for repeating health figures which are freely available on the internet
You seem to share my views on homosexual marriage, so that can't be a problem.

I find the "gay culture" which we are bombarded with in the media, distictly off putting.....but I dont suppose I'm in the minority in that.
I also find the idea of homosexual practice, and the nudge nudge jokes associated with it, disgusting...that is a personal opinion, but I'm prepared to bet that it is shared by the vast majority of heterosexuals

As you have already said, homosexual practice is a condition, a behavioural condition, and as such, criticism of it is not "bigotry"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: kendall
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 12:52 PM

I wish the Pope and certain others could go back in time for a while and see if they really would like the Dark Ages.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 01:21 PM

Suibhne....."Ten years ago my cousin was murdered for being gay."

Although horrific in itself, that bald statement says nothing about serious criticism of Homosexuality.
My nephew and many more were knifed in Glasgow for supporting the wrong football team.
Catholic/protestant violence is commonplace.
Violence against homosexuals or abuse of homosexuals or lesbians is much rarer in comparison.
If someone is killed assaulted or verbally abused, the laws are in place to deal with it, but dont bring your fascism down on others to curtail their right to express themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 01:55 PM

Ake, supporting a particular football team, indeed supporting one at all is a matter of choice. Indeed given the conduct widely associated with football supporters involving oneself with them might be argued to be a voluntary assumption of risk.

Even a choice of religion is a choice - a voluntary action.

One's sexual preference is no more a matter of choice than the colour of one's skin.

The idea that we are in a "gay culture" or that homosexuality (as a sexual preference) is or even can be promoted is fanciful. Your suggestions of such things merely underline your fear and bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 02:13 PM

Cheers, Richard - perfectly put.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 02:50 PM

OK Richard, are you saying that gay culture is not promoted in the entertainment media!

Whether homosexual practice is "a choice" or not is up for debate...
I am not prepared to take your word as law.
I agree with Peter, it is a condition...I added behavoural condition. Thats my opinion, yours appears to be that homosexuality is genetic. I await your argument in support of that opinion with interest.

In what way are the opinions I express bigotry?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 03:30 PM

Do you think that I, as a heterosexual have a "choice" as to how I feel about homosexual practice?
Or does Mother Nature determine my responses.
Why do my natural responses make ME a "bigot"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 05:55 PM

I could have a "natural response" that all people with skin darker than mine are inferior. If I were to express that belief out loud, that would be bigoted. Even if the response is "natural." Being "natural" doesn't shield you from a charge of bigotry. Sorry.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 06:11 PM

How the fuck can a disgusted response to skin colour be possibly described as "natural"?

I'm talking about a hetero's(my)natural response to same gender sex.
Correct me if I am wrong, but dont most hetero's share this response.
It has been measured you know!


Sorry???....Get a fuckin' grip!!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 06:17 PM

What a preposterous answer!
I have never heard anyone say they were "disgusted" by the colour of someones skin.. It just doesn't make sense
In all honesty,have you?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 06:31 PM

Ake, can you honestly say that you never heard the "disgust" argument used to defend miscegenation laws - based solely on skin colour?

And no, I did not say that sexual preference was genetic. But by the time it manifests it is immutable, although there are quite a few who are various ways along the road to omnisexuality.

What you have is not an acceptable response. An acceptable response to an unwanted sexual offer is "No thank you". Only if (unwanted) coercion is offered does a more extreme response merit consideration.

I would definitely decline an offer to partake in coprophagia, but that does not justify discrimination against those who find it exciting. Consenting persons of an age of sexual discretion and all that.

And yes, I can honestly say I have never seen any part of the media suggest that those who do not wish to should indulge in homosexual activity.

And no, don't take my word for it - THINK.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 06:40 PM

Webpage: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-173993.html

Quote: There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all White people at the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the White race and the Black race..

Author: Abraham Lincoln

Webpage: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=955613

Quote: I personally find it disgusting when I see a "white" person with a "black" person in a relationship.

Author: XeaL

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 06:53 PM

Richard the response that I am talking about comes from the life force itself. Nature in the raw, heteros are genetically programmed by nature to find intercourse with the opposite sex exciting and very pleasurable.
In the same way they are programmed to view same gender sex with varying degrees of distaste....nothing to do with rationalising the feelings of people who happen to be suffering from a "condition".......or what is acceptable to you.

Nothing to do with an "offer", the heterosexual mind and body naturally reject same gender sex....I suppose it has to do with the perpetuation of the species.

I may be only a builder, not an erudite lawyer, but, and this may surprise you, some of "us workies" do have the capacity to think. I use that capacity at all times and unlike most lawyers, not just inside the box.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 06:59 PM

An interesting talk on bigotry, fear and the cost to individuals and society. And, yes....we are likely all bigots (or have been) in some aspects of, or at some times in our lives.

WHAT PRICE BIGOTRY?
Undermining the rich foundations of humanity
Dorothy McRae-McMahon

Excerps:

Of course, bigotry is always present in all of us to some degree…. When respectable people give the nod to racism, it gives permissions for what is hidden and regarded as unacceptable to gain respectability and it gives life to the deathly impulses of extremists.

We are now facing the consequences of many forms of injustice, hate, colonialism, religious and racial hatreds and prejudice - partly the terrifying fruits of world history and partly the fruits of bigotries which arise from economic, religious and political fundamentalisms, the ultimate sources of bigotry in our day.

Fear of difference is, I guess, age-old. It is as though the existence of difference is, in itself, a negative comment on our being and lifestyle and thus an attack on us.

I began to look at these people more closely – not those whose who simply disagreed but those whom I would class as almost certainly homophobic. By definition, they were, of course, responding with fear.

Who can tell what lies beneath that fear? I would never presume to determine what lies there – fear of sexuality in general or in particular? Issues around bodiliness overall, perhaps?

Suffice to say that I wish, among other things, that we had taken to ourselves the healthy and integrated view of human being of the Jewish people, rather than the dualism of the Greek thinking of the day. Not that this implies that any of the great religions set an example of acceptance of difference in sexual preference, but at least in the Jewish tradition as I understand it, body, mind, heart and souls are not arranged in order of worth but are held together as the nature of wholeness.

Of course, there is a natural human impulse to be anxious in the presence of the unpredictable. We like others to fit into what we regard as our norms of response, life-style and behaviour as that feels much more comfortable....

What are the consequences of bigotry?



http://www.anu.edu.au/hrc/freilich/events/archive/WHAT%20PRICE%20BIGOTRY.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:00 PM

Mousethief...you are being ridiculous

You are citing cases of people who dont like the mixing of races.

Absolutely nothing to do with being disgusted by the colour of someones skin

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:17 PM

Ed...So its all about "fear of difference", well I just love people who are "different".
I love the eccentrics, the old people who have got beyond caring about convention, politically I'm about as radical as its possible to get.You would laugh if you could see how I dress or how I deal with people around me.

I'm nothing like the stereotyped image that I'm sure most on this forum have of me.

But my opinions on the dangerous nature of homosexuality are backed up by a whole series of figures, which are steadily getting worse, and according to the last UNAIDS hiv update, NEW and more effective measures need to be taken to arrest the number of new infections among homosexuals.
That means some form of compulsory aids testing, contact tracing and education.....or a dramatic improvement in the promiscuous nature of homosexual practice

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:47 PM

and Richard...for an intelligent fellow, you do display a large degree of naivety.

Of course the media dont suggest that"those who do not wish to should indulge in homosexual activity."

Its far more insidious than that!
Take many "comedy" shows on UK TV, where "gay" characters are shown as slighly nutty nice but dim folks with bi polar disorder.
Or the therapists, beauty consultants, gym instructors,hair dressers, interior designers, who present themselves to a mainly bored and female daytime audiance as being safe lovable sincere and "gay"

Of course we have no way of knowing whether they are actually "gay" or not, but like the politicians they are using the idea of homosexuality get where they want to be.
Homosexuals are stereotyped on TV and to some extent in the newspapers. They show only a few of their more endearing traits without any information being given on the health timebomb which homosexual practice contains.....so it is as I said, insidious promotion.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 08:01 PM

"Webpage: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-173993.html

Quote: There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all White people at the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the White race and the Black race..

Author: Abraham Lincoln"


Attributing racist comments to Lincoln by white racists goes back to the earliest days of the civil rights movement.

Most such attributions are bogus. Those that are not need to be put in the context of Lincoln's times. The attempted implication is that, were Abe here today, he would be of the same mind, which is, of course, ridiculous.

That the above quote was found on a blatantly racist website makes it questionable. Can anyone verify the quote from a reliable source?

And how does it pertain to the theme of the thread?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 08:13 PM

akenaton   

Good for you in celebrating diversity...from many perspectives. I assume the more and better one know different folks, the more tolerant one becomes....(and, I also suspect (though fear comes in many shades and colours).

Seems that HIV is now spread in many parts of the world by permiscious and unprotected sexual behaviour by as many or more herterosexuals as homosexuals (for example, in some areas of Africa....where HIV is an epidemic).
It does not seem logical that homosexual couples....in committed relationships....would be any greater threat to the spread of HIV than herterosexuals in similar committed relationships.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 08:20 PM

Certainly, Lincoln said things that would be considered racist in our day. He was a product of his time, and of his culture. Was he racist? I wouldn't call him that, since his attitudes toward slaves were ahead of his time. But if he said those things and had those attitudes in this day and age, then he certainly would be a racist.

I think racism is in our hearts, not in our words. If a person lived in a time of slavery and promoted humane treatment of slaves, was he a racist? I don't think so, because his heart was in the right place. I think the same thing goes for the way people treat homosexuals - if they come from a culture that disapproves of homosexuality, and they at least promote greater rights for homosexuals; then I think we should be hesitant to call them "bigots."

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 08:50 PM

the response that I am talking about comes from the life force itself. Nature in the raw, heteros are genetically programmed by nature to find intercourse with the opposite sex exciting and very pleasurable.

Even without contraception procreation is, at best, a random by-product of heterosexual intercourse which in terms of incidence is overwhelmingly about pleasure. Do the math - how many kids do we have in a lifetime? How many times do we fuck? It's barely significant. Human beings find sex pleasurable. It's what sex is - the instinctive animal urge to PURE UNADULTERATED PLEASURE, be it heterosexual or homosexual - this is why we do it. It is always exciting & pleasurable. It is all about the life force and capacity to ORGASM which is, after all, PERFECTLY NATURAL REGARDLESS. If the extremely occasional incidence of sexual intercourse results in procreation, then the species is assured survival; otherwise Nature in the Raw does not discriminate.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 09:12 PM

My point was that one can have "natural" bigoted thoughts, and that their being "natural" didn't make them right. Whether they were exactly the same ones I mentioned before is so stupid a counterargument that even you, Ake, should have known better. beeliner, if you can't follow an argument, that's your own look-out. I don't know if Lincoln himself said it. The fact that the argument is accredited to Lincoln is really a side-point, and I'm amazed so many people ran down that rabbit trail.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 11:18 PM

HIV/AIDS is rising at epic proportions among young people...mostly through needles.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 08:52 AM

100

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 09:19 AM

Katlaughing....new hiv infections among injecting drug users in the UK are falling quite substancially.

Homosexual men and Afrinan immigrants are the two groups with the highest rates of infection in percentage terms.

The figures are available on the Ugandan thread.

Mousethief..There is a natural distaste amongst most heteros to the idea of homosexual practice. In most cases this distaste does not apply to sex with a black woman, or a yellow woman or any other colour you like to come up with(no pun intended)

The natural order of attraction is to the opposite sex...fact
Anyone who denies this is either lying, or has sexuality issues.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 09:48 AM

I suspect what happens in the UK, may not be the case in the rest of the world.


"Although HIV is often perceived to be a 'gay' problem, infections acquired through heterosexual sex account for the largest number of HIV diagnoses in the UK. The majority of people who acquired HIV heterosexually were infected overseas but only became aware of their status after being tested in the UK. In terms of HIV infections actually occurring within the UK, gay men (and other men who have sex with men) accounted for two thirds of new cases."
Source

http://www.avert.org/aids-uk.htm

Since infection through oral sex is low, I suspect that is not a significant cause. Homosexual women may also be a low contribution to the stats. I suspect bisexual folks would be a factor.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 11:10 AM

"Homosexual men and Afrinan immigrants are the two groups with the highest rates of infection in percentage terms."

So that means, according to God's Vicar the British Government should repeal legislation that makes equality for african immigrants law because they have HIV? I mean, according to your own words such laws would take into account the 'fact' that African's sexual "practice is a condition, a behavioural condition, and as such, criticism of it is not "bigotry" "

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 12:26 PM

Ake, if you believe that homosexuality is a choice, at what age did you choose to be "Normal"?

And, modern science has proved that the choice is made in the fallopian tube, not in the person. That's why the males of every mammalian species has nipples.We all start out as females and certain hormonal changes take place before birth to make us either male or female. When those changes get confused you end up with a woman trapped in a man's body, or a man trapped in a woman's body.

This is also the reason for Hermaphrodites. Or do you think they choose to have both sets of plumbing?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 12:26 PM

Funny: a post of mine that I actually saw appear here has now vanished. Must try to remember what it was.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 12:29 PM

Akenaton stated
"The natural order of attraction is to the opposite sex...fact
Anyone who denies this is either lying, or has sexuality issues."

Attraction is attraction. What seems normal to you is disgusting to some others. There is no "natural" order. if one person finds the suction end of a vacuum cleaner attractive, then it is natural, albeit for that person....

I would assume that Akenaton is the one with sexuality issues. There is nothing to deny and nobody is lying.

Whatever floats your boat is natural for you, and you are the only person is your universe, so don't have hang ups, enjoy whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.

And just remember that a Pope is the least qualified person to talk about different lifestyles, (unless he has a past in line with some of his so called priests....)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 03:39 PM

I think anyone who is unreasonably sickened by the thought of gay sex should probably try to think about it less.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 03:45 PM

Why do any of you listen to the catholic church, or ANY church? They have supressed the free developmennt of mankind for centuries!! 'Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss'

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 03:51 PM

ps: I have just read 'smokeys' post. Sorry dude, there are still a few of us right thinking hetrerosxeuals out there who are physically revolted by the thought of homosexuality. Whatever you say, and however more pro GAY laws are inflicted upon me, I can't change my natural instincts.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 03:58 PM

Mankind 'invented' religion as a means of developing; we have no idea how we might have been now, had it not existed. It's impossible to speculate. I'd like to think we no longer need it, particularly the more archaic aspects. We do, however, owe a lot to it - education for example. Where would we be without good manners and correct spelling?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 04:04 PM

"I can't change my natural instincts."

Yep, thems pure boyo natyooral instinks! If it smells like you did it, you probably did do doo it!
Natyooral instinks roolz!!!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 04:12 PM

"there are still a few of us right thinking hetrerosxeuals out there who are physically revolted by the thought of homosexuality."

Hey, I'm understanding here Paco! I went on a joy ride once, real big one, one of those up and dowm and round and round rides, cost a wad too! Threw up something awful after.

But some folks despite the shock and horror and sickness, just keep going back for more? Doh!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 04:15 PM

Errh... sorry old colonial sister... that passed by me...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 04:16 PM

When the law makes it compulsory, I'll start worrying. Crikey, it'll be morris dancing next.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 04:58 PM

I'll say again, Paco: If you are so physically revolted by the thought of homosexuality, just don't think about it so much.

The spirit of Mary Whitehouse lives on..

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 05:01 PM

What a load of crap!
By fuck, you guys sure wriggle when you're on the hook.

This part of the discussion came around because a couple of posters whom I respect very much (Richard and Peter) referred to me as a "vile bigot" for holding the views I do on homosexuality and the dangers of homosexual practice,as we know it today.

Politically, my views are closer to theirs than most of the Mudcat members and I have no reason to believe that our views on religion or most other issues, would differ, yet they feel strongly enough to accuse me of bigotry for expressing my views....not abusing homosexuals, not making jokes at their expense, not wishing them harm, butsimply expressing my opinion that homosexual practice appears by the health figures to be very dangerous indeed....and to make what seems to me an obvious truth, that the vast majority of hetereosexual people find the idea of homosexual practice distasteful.
My post, which initiated this part of the discussion,
went as follows

"Do you think that I, as a heterosexual have a "choice" as to how I feel about homosexual practice?
Or does Mother Nature determine my responses.
Why do my natural responses make ME a "bigot"

Perhaps we could get back to discussing the true meaning of bigotry, and stop posting inane shite like the attempt to equate my views with racism, or Smokey's pearl of wisdom(supported by Crow Sister) that, "if you don't like something, just don't think about it".....try telling that to some of the "liberal" witch hunters who inhabit this place.....so many "liberal" causes not to think about!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 05:12 PM

I think you missed the point a bit there, Ake, and for what it's worth, I don't think your having an opinion makes you a bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:30 PM

Sorry Smokey, our previous conversations had slipped my mind....I was wrong to single you out.

But I do get frustrated by the mindset of a lot of people here, what do they think I have to gain by my so called bigotry?
I'm far removed from the Conservative Christian right in my politics, yet most here seem to think that if you question "liberal" dogma, you must be a right wing bigot, homophobe, pervert......the list of insults is endless.....are they so doubtful of their philosophy, that they are unable to debate a single strand without calling in the thought police?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:36 PM

I think one problem with forums is that the written word can so easily be misinterpreted.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:46 PM

From UK Facts;
People in the United Kingdom eat more cans of baked beans than the rest of the world combined.....Could this be important to this thread? Just wondering:)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:54 PM

It's all due to the Reformation, Ed. The Vatican has always frowned upon beans.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 07:06 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 07:21 PM

You're probably not a bigot, Ake, but you do seem a little, um, obsessed with what other people get up to in bed...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: kendall
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 07:27 PM

Ake, I have no desire to get close to a man. It's just not my thing. Neither is being a control freak. It seems to me that homophobes spend a lot of time concerning themselves with other peoples sex lives.

Sign me "Straight but not narrow"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 08:40 PM

Eh....Excuse me Spleen, but dont you realise that this is only incidentally about homosexuality?

Or have I been wasting my time for the last year?

Homosexuals are a very small minority with several very large problems....   the largest of those being their adoption by the "liberal left", a death sentence just as vicious as the one being proposed by the Ugandan govt; but the real problem for society is how to retain a degree of freedom in our lives, when faced by a faction who's raison d'etre and only hope of any kind of control over the rest of society, is to formulate laws in their own image and force them on a dumbed down and apathetic population under the guise of "rights" legislation.

Take your pick! the shelves are full of them!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 09:10 PM

"...faced by a faction who's raison d'etre and only hope of any kind of control over the rest of society, is to formulate laws in their own image and force them on a dumbed down and apathetic population under the guise of "rights" legislation." oh my aching back

Suppose that laws did get formulated "in their own image", in what way would that affect you?

Face it, buster. You just don't like the idea that some people like what you can't stomach, and if you have your way about it, they're going to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 09:21 PM

Ake, please do not associate me with your views. I have seen you previously express vile bigotry about travellers, many of whom are as amiable as our own Romany Man. Here you express it about male homosexuals (AFIAK you are unworried by female homosexuals).

I repeat. If buggery sickens you, don't do it. If other people do it without involving you it is none of your business. Sex is a personal thing. You do not make the rules - and no-one purports to compel you to any specific bedroom antics.

Even if (this is not a concession) himosexual (sic) penetration is dangerous to health, it does not affect you unless you do it.

So what's your problem?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 09:41 PM

For argument's sake, let's accept that random and unprotected male homosexual activity can be dangerous, from a health perspective.

Does it present a danger to others in society?

The spread of HIV is mostly limited to sexual activity.

If you are not a male homosexual, then this presents little, if any, risk to you.

Bisexual activity can contribute to the spread of HIV to the herterosexual community. But, if you are in a committed relationship..practice safe sex, or are not promiscuous...it should not present a significant, if any, risk or concern to you.

(Should wealso be concerned that some French women may not shave their legs and armpits)?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 09:57 PM

Time for all us hertero's to take a break from all this homo talk...a little music and video to the rescue:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tblb6-eJzKk

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 09:24 AM

Ignorance breeds fear, fear breeds hate and intolerance.

"I don't care what they do as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses." (Lady Campbell)

Jimmy Durante, "Leave everyone else alone."

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 10:05 AM

"The Vatican has always frowned upon beans."

Tsk, tsk! It's no laughing matter Smokey! Although I wasn't previously aware of the Vaticans official position on beans, it seems that according to some Christian thought, all forms of protien have a deliterious moral effect upon our spiritual resistance to primal impulses! In short beans - as a a protien source - make you lustful! So, just imagine the dangers of a secret Government experiment involving an all male prison fed a diet consisting exclusively of baked beans? Statistically, the combination of unrestrained buggery *and* noxious gasses would probably inevitably result in some kind of weird X Men style primal, evil gay humanoid species which would then almost definitely try to take over the world!

Just who would stop these evil bean-fueled unaturally lustful incessant buggerers, hey? I bet you won't be laughing then!
See, we really aught to take the queer concerns of some fellow posters here with the seriousness they rightly deserve. Shame on you!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 10:29 AM

" the heterosexual mind and body naturally reject same gender sex"

"Most of us "truly male guys" would never participate in a homosexual activity,
even if we were the last two people alive, and there were no sheep"
Quote source unknown

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 10:34 AM

" the heterosexual mind and body naturally reject same gender sex"

Well, I love Stilton but my friend finds it vile. So? My vegan friends find me drinking milk disgusting, while I think tempeh is chewy and nasty. I guess all that we can surmise from that, is that different people like different things. No geat surprise there then.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 12:04 PM

There lived a woman who had a maddening passion for baked beans. Unfortunately, they made her pass so much gas each time.

Baked Beans So when she met the man she would marry, she made the supreme sacrifice and gave up beans.

Some months after her wedding, her car broke down on the way home from work. She called her husband and told him she would be late because she had to walk home.

On her way, she stopped at a diner, and before she knew it, she had consumed three large orders of baked beans. All the way home she farted, and upon arriving home she felt sure she could control it.

Her husband seemed excited to see her and said, "Darling, I have a surprise for dinner tonight." He then blindfolded her and led her to her chair at the table.

She seated herself and as he was about to remove the blindfold from his wife, the telephone rang.

He made her promise not to touch the blindfold until he returned, then went to answer the telephone.

While her husband was out of the room she seized the opportunity, shifting her weight to one leg and letting it rip. I was loud, and smelled like a fertilizer truck running over a skunk. She shifted to the other cheek and ripped three more, which reminded her of cooked cabbage. She went on like this for another 10 minutes!

When her husband's call ended, she fanned the air a few more times with her napkin. He removed the blindfold, and she saw 12 dinner guests seated around the table to wish her a "Happy Birthday!"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: kendall
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 12:21 PM

The only thing a Pope ever said that I agree with was John the 23rd when he said, "When faith and science disagree, it is a matter of interpretation." Right on, there Johnnie.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 01:25 PM

The problem with repugnant homophobia is that religions peddle it, making many weird people feel justified with their abhorrent views.

Wow, those of you writing "right thinking" or "normal" meaning your warped view on how other lifestyles, being different to yours are wrong.... I bet you have removed all the mirrors in your house, or can you actually look yourself in the face without frowning???

Look.. A couple of things to try and bring this thread back on course;

1. A foreigner has (successfully up to yet) interfered with British Parliamentary process to inflict a view. A view, I may add that flies completely in the face of the Bill in question; an EQUALITY bill.

2. Christian leaders are allowed to influence british law, despite the fact that less 1% of British people attend a Christian church, and of them, a fair proportion don't really believe in an imaginary friend.

3. If the equality bill becomes law with religious organisations exempt from the law, we will have proved we truly are still a medieval state.

4. When faith and science disagree... Science has knocked another nail in the coffin of superstition....

(Sorry, couldn't resist the last one.)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:22 PM

Ed T."For argument's sake, let's accept that random and unprotected male homosexual activity can be dangerous, from a health perspective.

Does it present a danger to others in society?"

Firstly, there is no fucking argument, just read the latest UNAIDS hiv update! Look at male homosexual life expectancy figures! check homosexual promicuity statistics!(from a reputable source like UNAIDS or CDC)

Secondly, homosexuality is being presented to the public by the legislators as a safe and healthy lifestyle, by changing the definition of marriage to accomodate homosexuals and by making homosexual fostering of young children legal

Other minority groups which indulge in dangerous sexual behaviour (like incest) would not receive these "rights"
and before you say "incest is illegal", homosexual practice would still be illegal if the current health figures were available at the time of de-criminalisation.
...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:22 PM

We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes

I have, thanks to my travels, added to my stock all the superstitions of other countries. I know them all now, and in any critical moment of my life, they all rise up in armed legions for or against me.
Sarah Bernhardt

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:34 PM

Ed....Your talent is wasted here!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:39 PM

Ake, incest and other sexual relations within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity are illegal because of (1) the probability of coercive behaviour (not so much that when the prohibitions were introduced) and (2) the genetic risk. That is to say the prohibitions were not to protect fully voluntary participants.

Once again you reveal your bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:00 PM

It is very queer the way this akenaton chap seems to latch onto any thread which mentions homosexuality and start frothing at the mouth. As I've said before, there must be a pretty massive subtext surging and throbbing underneath all that homophobia, fear and bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:33 PM

the heterosexual mind and body naturally reject same gender sex

Hardly true, especially given the heterosexual minds of both genders that derive so much pleasure from such websites as Abby Winters. So what gives there? And there's been a lot of approval for the same-sex canoodling on EastEnders of late.

Why do men have nipples? Is that an abomination against the natural order? And what of that tell-tale line along the scrotum indicative of a sacred wounding that never quite healed? And why did God / Mother Nature put the male G-spot up the asshole?

All this homophobic crap would seem to be protesting too much; if you ask me guys are so deep in the closet they're in Narnia.

I say again:

Procreation is, at best, a random by-product of heterosexual intercourse which in terms of incidence is overwhelmingly about pleasure. Do the math - how many kids do we have in a lifetime? How many times do we fuck? It's barely significant. Human beings find sex pleasurable. It's what sex is - the instinctive animal urge to PURE UNADULTERATED PLEASURE, be it heterosexual or homosexual - this is why we do it. It is always exciting & pleasurable. It is all about the life force and capacity to ORGASM which is, after all, PERFECTLY NATURAL REGARDLESS. If the extremely occasional incidence of sexual intercourse results in procreation, then the species is assured survival; otherwise Nature in the Raw does not discriminate.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:42 PM

"Just who would stop these evil bean-fueled unaturally lustful incessant buggerers, hey? I bet you won't be laughing then!"

I bet I will...

Actually, daft as it might seem, there was a lot of religious opposition to potatoes when they first appeared over here, and it wasn't just Catholic.

Ake, just as a matter of interest, would you prefer heterosexual buggery to be illegal too?

Male G spot?? I think you'll find that's your prostate.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:35 PM

Oh, I didn't know one of Ake's faces was over here.

On the "Death penalty..." thread, the other face from which he speaks has proclaimed him a poster-boy for gay and sexual minority rights. Funny, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:39 PM

Forgive me if someone else pointed this out

"At a press conference in Rome, the Most Rev Peter Smith, Archbishop of Cardiff, said: "The Church of course upholds absolutely the equal dignity of every person, irrespective of their faith, age and ability.

But I think there is a misunderstanding, because sometimes in government legislation equality seems to be that we are all absolutely equal, which we are not."

That was from 'The Telegraph' last week.

Really, you can't make this shit up, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

And speaking of unnatural pleasures, I think quite highly of

Clothes
Beds
Houses
Cooked food
Motor transport
Distilled spirits
Central heating
Democracy (well, some of it anyway)

just for starters.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:53 PM

Anti-cheesist pervert.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:54 PM

Smokey....I didn't say I wanted homosexuality or anal sex to be illegal, I said the if the health figures were available at the time it would still be illegal.

I'm more interested in the political side of this argument than in the physical, but nobody wants to talk about that.

Enjoyed your prostate joke though :0)

Royston is of course a complete wanker on all threads.
Has Keith taught you how to drive your abacus yet Royston?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:56 PM

Sorry Ake, I thought that was your implication. My mistake,

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:58 PM

And if God put my prostate up my arse, I hope he washed his hands.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 07:03 PM

Richard....Your last post, on incest, could you please explain its meaning in laymans terms?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 07:47 PM

Ake: Royston is of course a complete wanker on all threads.
Has Keith taught you how to drive your abacus yet Royston?

All this time and all those faces from which to speak, and that's the best you can do? Shame on you.

As you yourself proved (via one of your faces) on the "Death penalty..." thread, significant threats to the health and safety of gay men, and significant hinderances to anti-HIV strategies, are the bigoted and ignorant views espoused by your other face - and by similar people. As you pointed out, if people like you, and views like yours, could in some way be controlled or prevented, then homosexuality could be de-stigmatised and more of the people who need to access care and HIV-prevention, would access them.

Source: Ake's other face, the one that supports the recent anti-bigotry campaigns of UNAIDS and the WHO. Pop over to the other thread and read all about it.

If we could get Ake's faces to say the same thing, maybe they could nip off to The Vatican and have a word? I'm sure Benedict would wither before the majesty of Ake's deductive reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: kendall
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 08:45 PM

Religion = superstition.
Superstition= religion.
Neither had a scrap of real evidence to support them.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 09:34 PM

akenaton

I asked:
Does it present a danger to others in society?"

You stated:

Firstly, there is no fucking argument, just read the latest UNAIDS hiv update! Look at male homosexual life expectancy figures! check homosexual promicuity statistics!(from a reputable source like UNAIDS or CDC)

My response....OK, lets say it does present a danger to permiscious male homosexuals and their unknowing partners....so where is the danger to others in society, including you and me? I see none.

You say:
Secondly, homosexuality is being presented to the public by the legislators as a safe and healthy lifestyle, by changing the definition of marriage to accomodate homosexuals and by making homosexual fostering of young children legal.

I do not see whereunhealthy permiscious male homosexual activity has anything to do with two committed homosexuals (male/male, female female, or others) making a lifelong committment to each other...as those in the herterosexual communitiy do. Both can be healthy and I suspect loving.

BTW, I suspect herterosexuals participating in permiscious behaviour also presents a similar danger.

You say:
Other minority groups which indulge in dangerous sexual behaviour (like incest) would not receive these "rights"and before you say "incest is illegal", homosexual practice would still be illegal if the current health figures were available at the time of de-criminalisation.

My response: I do not see the logic in this. Incest and rape are illegal and socially rejected in most western societies....regardless of who does it.
Again...you continue to lump all homosexual relationships together under one category...It is illogical to do this....and while you may have a case to debate....this gets in the way of thoughtful debate....which it seems you seek.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 08:28 AM

What I fail to understand is Benedict's reference to an infringement of natural law.

So, priests buggering children was OK then ? Not a breach of natural law ?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 08:39 AM

It's OK, Ed T

Ake is just pulling your leg when he says all that stuff about gay men. Becasue what he really supports - he keeps repeating it - is the UNAIDS position on equality, HIV and HIV prevention. He keeps telling us on various threads how important it is to listen to and follow what expert bodies like The UN, UNAIDS and the WHO say.

Like their most recent joint statement with the EU.

http://data.unaids.org/pub/PressStatement/2009/20091201_jointstatementeu_en.pdf

"Statement by UNAIDS and the European Union - World AIDS Day ─ 1 December 2009

The Presidency of the European Union (EU) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) welcome South Africa's strong focus on HIV prevention and HIV testing. The EU and UNAIDS stress the need for the full respect of all human rights -- that no man, woman, boy or girl must be subject to stigma and discrimination due to his or her HIV status, sexual orientation, age, or gender.

The rights of women, young people and key populations must be protected. Their voices must be heard and their needs must be met. An effective AIDS response requires gender equality. Women's and girls' rights must be respected, including the right to sexual and reproductive health.

All forms of gender-based violence must come to an end. Evidence-based and comprehensive HIV prevention policies and programmes must be scaled up, and access to the full range of HIV services must be secured. HIV must be part of the broad health and development agenda. HIV services must be integrated into other comprehensive health services; sexual and reproductive health and
rights must be recognised as an essential component in the HIV response.

The EU and UNAIDS reiterate their commitment to and support for the continued response to the epidemic.

Today in Pretoria, South Africa, the Swedish Minister for International Development Cooperation, Ms Gunilla Carlsson, on behalf of the European Union, and Mr Michel Sidibé, UNAIDS Executive Director, warmly welcomed the renewed South African focus on HIV and AIDS.

They strongly supported the focus on prevention and South Africa's call for all people to get to know their HIV status. Ms Carlsson and Mr Sidibé emphasized that HIV testing is crucial for en effective response to HIV and AIDS. They also recognized that testing must build on the full respect for human rights, the absolute need of not being forced to disclose your HIV status and that counselling and other support activities must be provided.

In welcoming this renewed South African focus, Ms Carlsson and Mr Sidibé noted that not only Africa but also the rest of the world needs this clear message from South Africa. They stressed that the South African leadership is necessary for a continued effective response to the pandemic.

Ms Carlsson and Mr Sidibé stressed the need for the full respect and adherence to all human rights. The right not to be subject to stigma and discrimination must be guaranteed. They noted that this is relevant for all men and women, children and young people, regardless of HIV status, sexual orientation, age, or gender.

They emphasized that an effective response to HIV and AIDS requires increased gender equality. Women's and girls' rights must be protected, including the right to sexual and reproductive health. All forms of gender-based violence must come to an end. Gender norms must be changed, traditional roles of women and men and the relationship between them must be addressed. Both the beliefs and behaviour of many men and boys must be changed.

Ms Carlsson and Mr Sidibe stressed that evidence-based and comprehensive HIV prevention policies and programmes must be scaled up. Access to the full range of services and commodities must be secured, including life skills and sex education for adolescents, male and female condoms and HIV harm reduction programmes, based on relevant UN recommendations.

They emphasized that HIV and AIDS must be part of the broad health and development agenda. HIV services must be integrated into other comprehensive health services; sexual and reproductive health and rights must be recognised as an essential component of HIV and AIDS programmes and prevention. They noted that the real challenge in the response to the pandemic is to translate principles, declarations and agreements into reality on the ground.

Ms Carlsson and Mr Sidibé recognized the important role to be played by international partners in the response to HIV and AIDS. They emphasized that such support must be based on harmonised projects and programmes, aligned to national priorities, plans, budgets and systems. They reiterated the strong commitment and support by the European Union, the 27 member states and the EU Commission, and UNAIDS in the further response to the epidemic."

So the authoritative experts are quite clear: Stigma and Prejudice kills people.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 12:50 PM

Here's me occasionally trying to put points about the religion side of it, and everybody wants to concentrate on the rights and wrongs of a lifestyle that ignorant superstitious scribes 2,000 years ago had hang ups about.

This is not just about being gay. it also affects women (50+% of all people) and anybody who does not believe in an imaginary friend but there is a job going for a cleaner / clerk / handy man whatever in their town and despite being able and willing, cannot be considered for the job because they are not a member of the club / society / sect advertising the job.

Regardless of any equality bill, there are already employment laws outlawing such pathetic practice. I wonder how the opt out will work? Good old Harriot Harman, yet again showing how useless she really is. bad enough her views but to back down so easily to an old man who doesn't think women are equal? ha Ha Ha. Sorry, it has to make you laugh, otherwise you may take it seriously instead and that would never do.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 06:18 PM

From what I can see, as ever, nothing the Pope actually said was concise enough to have any real meaning, other than that he is (as he is obliged) resisting a perceived erosion of the influence and control his church. Plus, he's drumming up awareness and feeling for his forthcoming visit. All part of the publicity machine.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 06:28 PM

"Anyway, Henry VIII declared the Pope cannot interfere with British law and that is fine by me!"

Henry was of course King of England, controlling Wales and Ireland too. One shouldn't really mix up England with Britain. Scotland went through its own seperate and more thorough Reformation. Britain as a political entity didn't exist in Henry's time.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 06:39 PM

Pardon my gibberish - "erosion of the influence and control of his church"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:00 AM

My bad.

Of course Great Britain did not exist in Henry VIII time, although at Holyrood House, I noticed a plaque showing something the present Queen opened. She was called Queen Elizabeth II, although of course to Scotland she is technically Queen Elizabeth I.

If royalty feel the distinction is no longer important, I am sure I can rattle on about British law before the term existed!

I agree with Smokey in that the Pope could be drumming up publicity for his forthcoming visit. Interfering with things that are above religion is not perhaps the best way methinks?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:13 AM

The Book of Common Prayer, 1542 :

" The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England".

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:48 AM

"If royalty feel the distinction is no longer important, I am sure I can rattle on about British law before the term existed!"

Fair dos if you want to post something that is historically inaccurate then it is your right to do so. It is equally one's right to point out inaccuracies though!

The UK government were taken to the civil court in Scotland in the 1950s over the monarch's numeral. The govt used the argument of parliamentary sovereignty but that argument was thrown out - however they won the case because the ruling declared that the monarch's numeral was a personal matter for the monarch. In other words she can call herself what she wants. The palace has since stated that the numerals used would be the highest available. Hence theoreticaly if we had a King Alexander he would be Alexander IV even though only Scotland has previously had King Alexanders. The chancs of the palace actually putting itself in that situation again are probably small.

What the monarch's style themselves doesn't always match reality. Edward I wasn't the first English monarch called Edward. James VI of Scotland styled himself King of Great Britain over 100 years before Great Britain existed as a kingdom. Likewise if you ever visit Traquair House you can see numerous portraits of the 17thC Stuart monarchs in which they style themselves not only Kings of Scotland, England and Ireland - but also of France.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 11:56 AM

I submit that the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England attempted to establish a common standard of religious belief in England and failed to do so. The Roman Catholic church tried to do a similar thing early, and also failed. How many RC s actually follow the directives of the RC Pope...ie on birth control?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 12:52 PM

"James VI of Scotland styled himself King of Great Britain"

He became James I of England when Elizabeth died.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 01:41 PM

Odd really, that these old Popey blokes (always blokes Popes, apart from Joan of course) who, by refusing to allow Catholics to use condoms have knowingly sentenced to death tens of thousands of Africans who contracted HIV due to unprotected sex.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 03:51 PM

Odd really...refusing to allow Catholics to use condoms have knowingly sentenced to death tens of thousands of Africans who contracted HIV due to unprotected sex.

What is even odder is that anywhere this subject is discussed a similar comment seems to crop up.

Are these people serious?

The 'refusal to allow', and hardly unique to Catholicism, concerns promiscuous sex - fornication and adultery. The RCC and most other Christian denoms, as well as many that are not Christian, regard sex outside marriage as sinful.

The idea of an observant Catholic completely disregarding this matter of basic morality, but at the same time observing the ban on artificial methods of birth control for religious reasons is pretty ridiculous, doncha think?

Promiscuous sex has always been dangerous and potentially deadly. That hardly originated with the pope.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 04:31 PM

"James VI of Scotland styled himself King of Great Britain"

"He became James I of England when Elizabeth died."

Indeed he did. James VI was also king of England. But the point I was making was that he likd to style himself as King of Great Britain. However that does not mean that a kingdom called Great Britain actually existed at that time outside of the royal imagination. Scotland and England remained seperate kingdoms for a further century (short period of the republican commonwealth aside) until the Kingdom of Great Britain was created in the 18thC.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 11:35 PM

The Rome Pope's influence in England was mostly cemented at the at Synod of Whitby in about 600 AD (paschal controversy). Yes, there were a few centuaries of separation....1534 to a recent proposal by the Pope to Anglicans, "that the Churches may be one again.

On October 20, 2009, the Poper announced he will be issuing an Apostolic Constitution (the highest form of papal document) to " erect personal ordinariates for Anglican clergy and laity wishing to enter the Catholic Church"

Here's what seems to be in the future: 1) The Pope will fast track this 2) The Pope is issuing an Apostolic Constitution soon; 3) The Apostolic Constitution will establish the canonical structure of personal ordinariates; 4) The Pope wiill continue to allow married convert-clergy to serve as priests; 5) The Pope values the "Anglican patrimony" of music, liturgy, reverence, and architecture.

This now seems to be welcome with those in the "High church" Those in the Low church are seeking options, as the "Broad Church"seems victors in changes in the Anglican Communion.

So, whatdoyouthinkofthat?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 11:37 PM

Oops, Poper should read Pope....sorry about that, Holy Father:(

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 09:35 AM

So, whatdoyouthinkofthat?

Personally, I think it would be great for the two churches to re-unite - they never should have been separated in the first place.

It think it's pretty well agreed by Church historians of both bodies that, according to the standards of that time, King Henry should have received his annullment and it was withheld for political purposes.

A visionary future potiff - probably not theimcumbent - may be able to accomplish this, or at least keep the ball rolling in that direction.

The three big issues standing in the way are female clergy and hierarchy, the morality of active homosexuality as a lifestyle, and contraception.

The first and last of these are the most easily disposed of - the RCC's postion on both is ridiculous and easily jettisoned.

The other is more contentious, even within Anglicanism.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM

...according to the standards of that time, King Henry should have received his annullment and it was withheld for political purposes.

If he'd been given it, that would have been purely - and cynically - for political purposes. The "grounds" for any annullment were complete rubbish. However all that was the occasion rather than the reason for the split, which was basically to do with power and money, like most things - in this case all that monastic property waiting to be seized.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:47 PM

Ah for the good old days, when knights were bold and maidens - not to mention royal wives - lost their heads!

You are correct, it would have been political in either case.

But hardly an impediment to the two Churches re-uniting centuries later.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:00 PM

Ah for the good old days, when knights were bold and maidens - not to mention royal wives - lost their heads!

Well I would expect royal wives to lose their maidenheads.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Roughyed
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:31 PM

The background to this in Britain is that the government is trying to hive off some of the public sector functions to what it calls the third sector i.e. charities along with the staff. They see it as a more politically acceptable form of privatisation.

Some of those charities have religious ties which have homophobic views and workers in the public sector who are used to a comparatively progressive attitude to gay lesbian and transgender people have an understandable fear of suddenly finding themselves employed by people who think they are the spawn of satan.

The legislation is an attempt to allay those fears/soften up the opposition, take your choice, but Papa Razzi has put his foot in it again with another ill timed and ill judged contribution.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 08:17 PM

"So, whatdoyouthinkofthat?" (EdT)

I think it would be a monumental disaster if the two churches reunited. The west has suffered quite enough already from religious lunacy. The last thing we need is a more powerful church. Church and State are best separated by a chasm of infinite width.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 08:52 PM

Thanks, Allan C. I'm with you.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:05 PM

The anti-women discrimination goes deeper than you thought, Sugarfoot Jack. There was never a Pope Joan. If it was the Maid of Orleans you had in mind, the occupying Brits (or "English" as I had better say in this thread) required a French court to find her guilty of heresy and she was accordingly burnt at the stake.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:53 PM

There was never a Pope Joan. If it was the Maid of Orleans...

I think Sug was referring to the fictitious tale of a "Pope Joan", which was a plagiarism of a Roman legend having nothing to do with the Church in much the same way that "The Protocols of...Zion" was a plagiarism of a French satire having nothing to do with Jews.

Unfortunately, some people still believe one or both of these are true. I think Sug was just joking though.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:46 AM

"it was the Maid of Orleans you had in mind, the occupying Brits (or "English" as I had better say in this thread)"

This is actually a perfect subject to show the reson why it isn't just someone being pernickity, rather it just doesn't make sense to talk about the British when what is meant is the English. During the campaigns of Joan of Arc, as in much of the said wars, Scotland was closely allied to France and thousands of Scottish troops were campaigning in France on behalf of both the French and Scottish kingdoms against the English kingdom. So yes it would make no sense to suggest France was at war with Britain whether it is in this thread or not. I actually remember somewhere reading that when St Joan entered Orleans she did so with her Scots Guard to the tune of what is now known as Scots Wha Hae. Don't know if that is just a story or if it is rooted in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:49 AM

Furthermore, Peter K, Joan of Arc, Maid of Orleans, had no connection whatever with the Pope Joan canard, and is a mere red herring. There is a full and excellent Wikipedia article on the Pope Joan legend.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:35 AM

"The idea of an observant Catholic completely disregarding this matter of basic morality, but at the same time observing the ban on artificial methods of birth control for religious reasons is pretty ridiculous, doncha think?"

I don't actually, because in the real world the two don't necessarily go together. What seems like sound theological dogma when dreamed up in the hushed precincts of the Vatican don't translate into the harsh reality of the real world. In fact, it's pretty ridiculous to think it does and seeing that within the church systematic, deeply immoral behaviour has been actively covered up over the years would make that glaringly obvious.

That's before you've even got to the sort of society and environment so many of their flock live in a world away from the comfortable, closeted and privileged existence the bloated grandees of the church are familiar with.

Which is why proclamations from decrepit old men safely ensconsed in their exclusive old boy's club should be treated with the utter contempt they deserve, and even more so when they're trying to directly influence the elected government of a democracy (I use the term advisedly) of a country where most of the people don't subscribe to their anachronistic dogma anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:08 AM

Sugar, you are entitled to all of those opinions.

My only objection is to your earlier claim that the "death [of] tens of thousands of Africans who contracted HIV due to unprotected sex" is somehow the Church's fault. That is not only outrageous but quite stupid.

Christianity, and Judaism before it, have always condemned promiscuous sex and will continue to do so. Like many articles of Jewish law, the prosciption is hygienic in origin.

The social service agencies that distribute condoms in Africa and provide information on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases make no moral judgements. This is a luxury that religion does not have.

A married couple living in a committed relationship with each other and with their Creator need have little worry about dying of AIDS.

The Catholic Church advises its members on which methods of family planning it considers morally acceptable. Beyond that, the choice rests with the couple's own conscience.

AIDS is spread by filthy behavior, not by the advocacy of basic standards of morality.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:34 AM

"That is not only outrageous but quite stupid."

Cheers.

"Christianity, and Judaism before it, have always condemned promiscuous sex and will continue to do so. Like many articles of Jewish law, the prosciption is hygienic in origin."

Hygienic? So nothing to do with a code of morality then? Out of interest, what do they say about nose picking then? As far as I am aware, the Bible, Talmud or any other ancient text doesn't discuss condom use so any modern decree won't be the result of divine instruction but mortal construction.

"The social service agencies that distribute condoms in Africa and provide information on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases make no moral judgements. This is a luxury that religion does not have. "

Quite right too - at least not everyone is abandoning those in need when the going gets tough. If religion cannot negotiate it's way through complex moral and cultural dilemmas then it's only showing it's own shortcomings. Many of these people live in abject poverty and need real, practical help to overcome the challenges they face, not the disapproving judgements of those who supposedly share their faith. So much for the parable of the good Samaritan.

"A married couple living in a committed relationship with each other and with their Creator need have little worry about dying of AIDS."

What's that got to do with the price of cheese?

"AIDS is spread by filthy behavior, not by the advocacy of basic standards of morality."

Like the leaflet said, HIV is spread by ignorance - education is the key as it is with so many preventable diseases.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:20 AM

Well, I followed your link, here is part of what it says:

The Pope said "the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids".

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says the Church's view is that encouraging people to use condoms only minimises the effects of behaviour that in itself damages lives.

The pope is absolutely right, and David Wiley is absolutely right in correctly stating the Catholic Church's position (something that the BBC is often not very good at).

Condoms can fail, through physical defects or, more often, improper use. Moral sexual behavior, by definition, cannot.

The report then goes on:

But the London-based Lancet said the Pope had "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue".

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.

"Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear," said the journal.

But it said the comment still stood and urged the Vatican to issue a retraction.

"When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record," it said.

Outrageous! There wasn't any distortion and there wasn't any error, and there certainly isn't anything to retract.

The pope can no more say, "If you're going to commit adultery be sure to use a condom" than he can say, "If you're going to rob a bank be sure to post a lookout."

With the remainder of your post I take very little exception.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:50 AM

Where have you been for the last 100 years, beeliner?

Sex is hardwired into our psyche. It (I suggest) was a useful survival mechanism for the species to make sex pleasurable rather than mechanistic as it increased the likelihood of child survival, long long before marriage was invented.

You can't unwire that. People are going to have sex, because it is pleasurable.

Doctrines of abstinence were around before syphilis. They were a tool of the priesthood to manipulate credulous followers, to enable the priesthood to play the guilt card to achieve power.

People are simply not (in general, you can always find a few who are unlucky or freaks with no hormones) going to abstain from sex.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:06 PM

Richard, you are talking to the wrong person, you need to bring this to the attention of the world's religious leaders.

Let me know how they respond.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 01:04 PM

I like this idea of the two churches getting it together. (Peoples' Popular Front of Judea???)

If they were the one club, it would be less work involved in pointing and laughing. Perhaps on a more serious note, here in the UK, pooling resources may be the only way to survive as many people who were hitherto without a view one way or the other, develop opinions when they hear the old men with pointy hats rattle on about women and Gay men not being good enough to read from an old book and hand out wafers & wine.

Pope talking sense? I am sure he has the right to point out that a law in a country that includes his followers makes it difficult for them to practice bigotry, and likewise, everybody else has the right to point out the folly in his comments.

Did I just read above that the spread of AIDS is through filthy behaviour?   Wow... Filthy behaviour can be fun, but needle sharing isn't. They can both spread a virus. it is in the nature of a virus rather than the mind of a person though.

The catholic church should keep quiet on that front, as to deny that sex is nothing but procreation is not only false but the ensuing frustration leads to.... err... Sorry, but the harrowing facts of the irish priests are too much for Steamin' Willie to poke fun at.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 01:24 PM

Apologies to all. The Pope Joan legend had passed me by.

it just doesn't make sense to talk about the British when what is meant is the English.

But "English" doesn't quite hit the mark either, Allan C, since quite a few of the occupiers were more French tghan English....

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 02:06 PM

The Church can practice Harm Reduction without giving up its morality. She could say "we believe sex outside the holy enclave of marriage is foolish and immoral" and also "we recognize not everybody will agree with us, or be able to toe that particular line, and if that's the case it is better to use protection than not" without contradiction. That she has chosen not to shows that her precious morality is more important to her than the lives of real people. Which is sickening.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 02:34 PM

"...we recognize not everybody will agree with us, or be able to toe that particular line, and if that's the case it is better to use protection than not."

mouse, that's what the various social service agencies would say. I've never criticised that. They make no moral judgments and neither do I. One is responsible to God, and to some extent to one's neighbor, for one's sins, not to the free clinic nor to me.

The Church can't say that. Firstly, the people you describe, who "don't agree or aren't willing to toe the line" wouldn't pay attention anyway.

Secondly, the Church is absolutely correct. Abstention from dangerous sex is not only moral but 100% effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases. No more need be said.

But the discussion has now gone full circle, perhaps more than once, so what's the point in continuing.

I don't consider myself a particularly 'devout' Catholic, if I had to pick an adjective it would be 'pragmatic', but I don't like to see my Church villified for doing the right thing and promoting moral rather than sinful behavior - without equivocation and without apology.

I don't like to see other religious bodies wrongfully criticized either, but I am, as would be expected, more knowledgable about my own.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:20 PM

Ah. "I've had the last word. Please stop talking about this."

Very honourable.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Penny S. (sans cookie)
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:49 PM

The Anglicans will not be able to join with the Catholics under the Pope. The split may have been triggered or enabled by Henry's marriage problems, but the adoption of Protestantism was already under way, and proceeded after him. Many people were prepared to go to the stake over their lack of belief in transubstantiation. The Anglicans include a tranche who long to go to Rome, a movement which only goes back to Victorian times, but also a tranche of evangelicals with much in common with such people in other churches. And some who follow a middle way. The point of the Anglican church was that all could be accomodated. It never was true - hence all the chapels in Britain. It is less true now. But - join at the head, and the body will split off before the ink is dry.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:50 PM

You can continue talking as long as you wish. I just don't see the point in continuing to participate in a discussion that is going around in circles.

The Church condemns filthy behavior in the strongest terms, for reasons of morality but also of hygiene. It's therefore responsible for the filthy behaviour and its consequences.

Very profound, mouse.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:54 PM

She could say "we believe sex outside the holy enclave of marriage is foolish and immoral" and also "we recognize not everybody will agree with us, or be able to toe that particular line, and if that's the case it is better to use protection than not" without contradiction.

Well said, Alex. And actually, that's what a lot of Catholic priests will tell people in private discussion. Now, a legalist would say that would be contradicting Church teaching to do it that way - but it really isn't. In a one-on-one situation, people are able to explore the nuances of a situation through the eyes of compassion, and they can come up with a workable solution that honors both the ideals and the realities. I think the current Pope is a very rational sort of person, and would probably agree with this (privately). Can't say that for John Paul II, who was the darling of the legalists.

And just because the reality doesn't always allow us to adhere strictly to the ideal, does that mean we are forced to totally abandon the ideal and seek only the lowest common denominator?

I, for one, think that sexual fidelity in marriage is a wonderful ideal to uphold. But I was ten years between marriages, and my reality was such that I saw no need to be celibate for ten years. So, I had three wonderful relationships that turned out not to be permanent. Did I go go confession and confess what I did as sins? Certainly not. These relationships were good and loving and wholesome, and I did not consider them sinful in any way - but since I knew this decision was contrary to Church teaching, I didn't think it would be right (or rational) to go to a priest to ask his permission for me to contradict Church teaching. St. Thomas Aquinas would back me up on this - but it's well-nigh impossible to explain these moral nuances to a group. It must be done in one-on-one discussion.

My primary moral theology teacher in the seminary was a crusty old Irish-American who had great compassion, a practical nature, a wonderful sense of humor, and a brilliant mind. He believed in law, but he believed it should be applied with compassion and wisdom. He did NOT believe in a legalistic approach to moral theology.

Much of the criticism of churches in this thread, comes from a legalistic perspective. Religious faith should not be a legalistic process, despite the fact that many "believers" see it that way. Religious faith lives in the world of ideals - and ideals that are applied without compassion and wisdom and tolerance, are deadly. When people espouse any ideology without compassion and wisdom and tolerance, all hell breaks loose.

Does that mean we should abandon all ideals? I certainly hope not. I think that all the major religious creeds are rooted in compassion and wisdom - and if they do not remain rooted in these elements, then they have not been true to their origins. Although these elements have been denied by those in power at the head of many denominations, most denominations have many members who have remained true to the roots of their faith.

I also have to say that I have never had much faith in upper management, that I see top leaders as an annoying but necessary evil in all organizations. The heart of any community lies in the people who show wisdom and compassion, the people who deal with others one-on-one.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:11 PM

As the old saying goes "be good, and if you can't be good, be careful".

And that applies as much to sexual activities as it does to robbing banks or shoplifting.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:13 PM

"She could say "we believe sex outside the holy enclave of marriage is foolish and immoral" and also "we recognize not everybody will agree with us, or be able to toe that particular line, and if that's the case it is better to use protection than not" without contradiction. That she has chosen not to shows that her precious morality is more important to her than the lives of real people. Which is sickening"

Ha Ha! What a fuckin' hypocrit, isn't that exactly what i've been saying to you and the other "liberals" on the subject of compulsory testing and contact tracing for groups "AT RISK" from hiv/ aids?

Just substitute "precious liberal agenda" for "precious morality" and your on the button......seemples!!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:21 PM

And furthermore...

Karen Armstrong says almost all religious groups have what may be called "founding myths," stories about their founders and the origins of their faith. These myths have varying levels of historicity, but their historicity isn't what's important. These myths tell profound truths. The Jewish patriarchs and Mohammed were examples of faithfulness to the ideal, and their ideal God was faithful to them - "slow to anger and rich in kindness," as the Hebrew Scriptures say. Jesus was a paragon of compassion and love and justice for the downtrodden, despite certain contradictory stories like the cursing of the fig tree. The Buddha was the supreme example of wisdom and Enlightenment, disconnecting oneself from the trivialities to seek the simplicity of the profound. In the same fashion, there are profound truths expressed in myth in Native American and Celtic spirituality, and in most Asian, African, and other religious creeds.

Now, if you're a legalist, whether you accept or respect a religious creed or not; you seek only to prove or deny the historicity of these myths, and fail to see the profound truths that are at their center - truths like compassion and tolerance and wisdom and love and family and peace and justice.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:33 PM

"Filthy sexual behaviour" - give me a break, I thought stupid ideas like that died out in the early 60s.   Mary Whitehouse is extinct, I am glad to say. I thought her attitudes were, but I hope they soon will be.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:36 PM

I wasn't expecting the the Inquisition

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:36 PM

Well, "filthy" has some problematic judgmental connotations, but I suppose there's some truth in it. If you can't remember the people you've had sex with, perhaps you have a problem....

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:53 PM

Ake, be a good boy and stay out of the grown-ups' discussion.

I'm afraid the Catholic Church's position amounts to, "I'd rather you were dead than that you wore a condom" -- and in fact by God people are dying for not wearing condoms, just as they were taught by the Catholic Church.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:13 PM

Now, I have to confess that I am more-or-less a literalist when I teach Hebrew and Christian scriptures. I believe that when you teach scripture, you have to respect the integrity of the story - so I do not dwell on the question of whether or not this or that is historically factual. I make it clear from time to time that historicity is not the issue, that what we're looking for is the profound meaning behind the stories in the scriptures. But I talk of the stories of Jesus and the Old Testament stories as if they were factual, rather than constantly reminding my hearers that "this is only a myth." It is not only a myth - it is a profound truth that has been expressed in many different ways through many different myths. And if my hearers have different views of the historicity of what they're reading, that's generally OK with me - as look as they're willing to go with me and explore the deeper meaning of the stories. Myths have a way of communicating with people who are at a wide spectrum of levels of sophistication. Poetry and fiction do that also, but without the aspect of the sacredness of tradition.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM

Well, Alex posted while I was posting, so I'd like to re-state his restatement of the Catholic position on condoms:

"We want to uphold the ideal of fidelity and love in lifelong marriage, and of the sacredness of children, life, and procreation. These are absolute, unquestionable ideals that all should strive for. We cannot make general statements about individual situations where the absolute ideal is impossible to attain - God gave us our consciences to guide us in such matters, combined with the assistance of wise and faithful counselors."

Churches exist to preserve the ideals - it's up to us to apply those ideals to the reality of our lives. And if you view life strictly from a legalistic perspective, you will not even be able to understand this statement. Our modern culture has deified law, and expects law to be comprehensive and perfect. Law can never be all-encompassing, so it can never live up to our expectations of perfection.

-Joe-

P.S. And from a personal standpoint, I have to say that it's really difficult to have good sex with a condom. Having a vasectomy was a much better solution - but as my long-dead pastor said years and years ago, "It's permanent."

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:20 PM

And, then there is this perspective:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/02/

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:22 PM

You can't have an adoption society which dicriminates against homosexuals, but you can have one that discriminates against smokers. or people who are over weight. How about one which discriminates against polygamists?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:41 PM

Even if God existed the idea of a licence to do evil in the name of GOd is farcical.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:59 PM

the idea of a licence to do evil in the name of God is farcical.

Agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 02:47 AM

McG. I'm note sure about your point regarding discriminations, can you clarify?

It seems obvious that smokers would be discriminated against - their choice to smoke, which they can change as and when they like, is instantly and physically harmful to the extent of being life-threatening and life-limiting for the child.

I'm not so sure about the overweight issue and I don't know of any polygamy in this part of the world. I don't really see what would preclude either of those groups, unless an overweight person was physically unable to look after children for reasons of restricted mobility or other health issues.

Stable homosexual couples, screened and pored over every bit as heterosexual couples for their suitability and demonstrable aptitude for parenting, is there a problem there?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 04:29 AM

"their choice to smoke, which they can change as and when they like" - is a bit of an overstatement. I'm sure you know, Royston, to whom I refer.

But current scientific views are that passive smoking is harmful, so if that be right, then reluctance for smokers to adopt is rational.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 05:33 AM

I suppose if you believe in superstitions, and especially religious superstition, you are comfortable with using words such as "moral" and "evil." After all, they are words used to compare your sanctimony with "the others."

Right and wrong are enshrined in law, via Parliament. Any moral judgement over and above that is a personal one and only relates to yourself. Just because you feel the need to have an imaginary friend does not make your argument any stronger, (or indeed less strong to be fair.) It is your belief, but not necessarily anybody else's.

Hence the uncomfortable situation for the majority of the voting public when a church leader (even a foreign one) tries to influence law based on their moral compass. We have Anglican Bishops in The Lords as it is, and it is about time there was disestablishment, especially as they "represent" a tiny minority now.

I do accept that religious groups only want opt outs for themselves rather than oppose the whole bill on principle, but doesn't that alone seem strange to you? It does me. If they claim they are in the right, then their view is to apply to all, as they claim we are all part of their vision?

I saw a comic on the box last night who summed it up perfectly. "If we are all God's children, what makes Jesus so special?"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:27 AM

"just doesn't make sense to talk about the British when what is meant is the English.

But "English" doesn't quite hit the mark either, Allan C, since quite a few of the occupiers were more French tghan English...."

But English makes much more sense than British in the fact that it was the English kingdom involved in a war against the French and Scottish kingdoms. You do have a valid point though! I noticed in another thread someone was going on about "the British" invading Ireland 900 years ago. Of course again it makes no sense to say British as it was vassals of the English King who invaded. Scotland was a completely seperate entity not involved and Wales was itself under the cosh and would soon be completely under a more thorough occupation than Ireland suffered. But you are right and certainly it makes no sense at that very early stage to lump the invaders under the description "the English" as the invaders were by and large the same Franco-Norman nobility who had invaded England itself a century beforehand and was still dominating that country.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:54 AM

Nobody prepared to take me on about sodomite papist priests ?

Kiddly fiddler papist priests ?

papist priests who called my first wife a whore and our children bastards, because she and I got married in a register office ?

Well, beeliner - et al ?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 12:09 PM

Two quotes from Richard:

"Filthy sexual behaviour" - give me a break, I thought stupid ideas like that died out in the early 60s.

Even if God existed the idea of a licence to do evil in the name of GOd is farcical.

Richard, you can use whatever adjective you wish. If you don't like 'filthy', substitute 'reckless', 'amoral', 'potentially lethal', or any other description you like.

The fine (artistically) young actor Ray Sharkey got AIDS from needle sharing, gave it to several young women before he died, they all died later, I would call that filthy behavior. He didn't do that because he was a Catholic, he did it because he was a contemptible, amoral louse.

The point is, neither the Catholic Church nor any other Church, except possibly the Church of Satan, is going to say 'If you commit adultery, do it this way', as poster mouse seems to believe they should.

And that, of course, brings us to your second quote above. I thought that was what I had been saying all along.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 12:33 PM

Ah yes, Richard, I should be more precise.

I was an ardent smoker. I smoked with a passion that would rival the pope's for his cassocks.

But then I found the right motivation and gave up quite easily. Knowing what we know now about the danger of smoke to kids' health, I am sure that good prospective parents would find the right motivation.

I don't think smoker's can necessarily take or leave their drug as and when they like.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 12:55 PM

Actually, Royston, I was thinking of a certain mother who could not.

Beeliner, it was you who used the word "filthy" - and that gave you away. You are simply trying to thrust your puritanical (or papal - I don't really care which) inhibitions onto other people.

For the reasons I gave, people are going to take their sexual pleasures. Those who willingly join them are their own custodians and the only appropriate condemnation is of those who take their pleasures from those who do not consent, or who are not fit to consent, or are tricked or pressed into apparent consent.

Keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 01:57 PM

Ah, yes, Richard.

Please excuse the erstwhile apostrophe, it is the blackberry taking on a mind of its own.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 02:16 PM

My point was that it would not be considered as intolerable for an adoption society to have a policy of excluding people who smoke, or people who are overweight. And I would think that the same would be true when it came to an adoption society with a policy of excluding families where there are more than two parents, in countries where arrangements like that are legal, such as South Africa or Pakistan.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 02:34 PM

Well, McG, I think that smokers ought not to be allowed to adopt. Many would agree. The danger, to the child, is not abstract or subjective; it is real and present.

I can see only limited circumstances that would preclude an obese person, I see none that would preclude an 'overweight' person, I see none that would preclude a gay couple or a polygamic setup where such an arrangement is lawful.

What do others say?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 03:59 PM

"I think that smokers ought not to be allowed to adopt. Many would agree. The danger, to the child, is not abstract or subjective; it is real and present."

But the minimal health risks are surely far less than the deep psychological damage of a child remaining in an institution, because all prospective adoptive families containing smoker are ruled out of adopting?

Slicing the pool of potential adoptee's in such a blanket fashion strikes me to the core when I think of the amount of kids simply desperate to find *loving homes*.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM

Furthermore the inequity of such a ruling bothers me deeply. Natural parents are not dissallowed from parenting by law because they smoke. Children without parents simply need parents and stable homes far more than they need sterile smoke free zones.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 04:44 PM

Should non aboriginal people be allowed to adopt aboriginal children?
There was significant abuse and loss of culture of aboriginal children in Canada and other countries through church sponsored adoption and residential school programs (Anglican and others).

And should white people be allowed to adopt black children....especially from countries of different cultures (Africa, Haiti etc).

And,,,of course, there is significant western adoptions from China.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 04:52 PM

Ed T - I'd say yes. The immediate necessity of a child for a stable loving environment overrides any politically correct side-issies to *my* mind. Where parents that are *more* suited to a childs needs are available, then those may be preferenced. But if it's a case of white smoking stable home for a black adolescent is concerned, versus pretty much nothing, I'd go with the smoking white family. People who are trained in this kind of thing, might differ. But that'd be my uneducated take.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 06:48 PM

Many people were prepared to go to the stake over their lack of belief in transubstantiation.

Does anyone believe in transubstantiation? (Be honest!)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:00 PM

Having thought about this discussion of adoption from the point of view of what I would want for my own children should the necessity arise, I must confess it has brought out prejudices I never knew I had, and of which some might say I should be ashamed. I suggest that whatever anyone's opinions concerning adoption may be, they should first apply them to their own children. (That remark is not directed at anyone in particular)

That aside, I'm a nicotine addict but I never smoke in front of or near my boys, nor will anyone else if I'm there to prevent it. I don't see why foster parents couldn't do the same. For the record, I feel the same way about drinking too, although partial to a drop now and again.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:03 PM

"Does anyone believe in transubstantiation?"

There's one at the end of our road - it's green.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:20 PM

Does anybody understand transubstantiation?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:29 PM

Sure - I just don't understand why anyone believes it..

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:31 PM

I don't understand why anybody gives Richard Dawkins the time of day. But people do.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:52 PM

Come to think of it, If I were dead (which I'm not, yet) and if I were then sentient and cognisant (which I wouldn't be) and had left minor children on earth (not the case unless I get remarkably lucky very soon), I'd be mighty pissed at the thought of them going to the home of some god-botherers to be indoctrinated rather than allowed and encouraged to think.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:59 PM

Your imagination is stunted.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:09 PM

The point isn't whether it should be illegal for any of those categories of people to adopt, but whether it is right that it should be illegal for any adoption society to have a policy of not placing children with them. Which isn't the case so far as smokers, or obese people, or polygamists are concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:23 PM

If I can borrow from Crow Sisters thoughtful reply to my earlier question:

"Where there is (an) immediate necessity of a child for a stable loving environment", why wouldn't a gay couple, in a committed and loving relationship (akin to a marrage, or a marriage, where law permits), be a good choice for adoptive parents? Just wondering where folks line up on this type situation.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:25 PM

This thread has become unmanageable. I can't determine when which subgroup enters the dialogue and who's saying what about each, short of making a little chart and I can't be arsed. Instead please allow me to ask: which people are you against discrimination against? I'm probably against discriminating against them too.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:33 PM

But that's not at issue. The question is whether it is right to impose that policy by law on every adoption society in the country.

Is that really all that different from imposing the reverse policy, and insisting that all adoption sovieties excluded gay couples?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:47 PM

Well, yes, I believe in transubstantiation - that somehow the bread and wine becomes Christ. That's a central and sacred belief for Catholics.

Understanding is another matter - it gets into a language I don't want to speak. My understanding is what I said, that somehow the bread and wine becomes Christ. How do I explain what's sacred to me, in the words of those who don't consider those things sacred? All I can say is that it means a lot to me.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:51 PM

The question is whether it is right to impose that policy by law on every adoption society in the country

WHAT policy? How can one say if it is right to impose a policy if no one will tell one what policy is at issue? I thought that's what I had asked for; if not, mea culpa. I'd love to either emphatically agree with you or violently disagree with you, if only I knew what the issue was.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: pdq
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:55 PM

transubstantiation - A place where BART trains stop.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 09:01 PM

The more you read on transubstantiation, the more it's history seems kind of sketchy.

It seems like transubstantiation in the RC church does not date back to the Last Supper, but to Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation in 831.

It took about four hundred years to get accepted, at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D (after about 176 RC popes sat without it, and around the time of King John and the fourth Crusade), where it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma of the RC church.

Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions...source: http://associate.com/library/The_Reading_Room/False_Teaching_n_Teachers_3/Transubstantiation.shtml


Some useful information sites:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.xxi.html


http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=transub

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 09:06 PM

Didn't Carly Simon once say in a song:
Transubstantiation, transubstantiation
Is making me late
Is keeping me waiting

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 09:35 PM

I grew up as a RC, and never questioned any of the church dogma. In our community, even eating meat on Friday and women wearing head cover at church was considered a commandment of God....and of course the church.

Because of the Priest scandal, I left the RC church and am loosly associated with the Anglican Church....because it feels more RC than the others....though, I would feel comfortable inside any Christian Church.

Even though I do not consider myself part of the organized RC church, part of my essence is from my early learning...which is RC. The more I read, the reasoning part of me says transubstantiation and the way it evolves makes minimal sense. However, being raised as a RC, I have feel quite spiritually accepting to transubstantiation...because, as Joe states, it is now an important part of the RC faith.

On a logical side, I feel, why not? What do I know, or any of the material that I read. So, what would be the downside of believing in transubstantiation. If it makes you feel good, and gets you close to God and your spiritual side....why not go with the flow.

However, if you have not been steeped in the RC docrine in early life, I can understand that it can be difficult to buy into....and yes, its history within the RC church and outside may seem on the sketchy side., as I stated earlier.

So, I can joke about it and question the logic....if it serves a puirpose. But, the RC side of me (which will likely always be present) is quite comfortable....and even spiritually warmed by transubstantiation.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 09:44 PM

BTW, if anyone is interested in reading up on RC Popes in History, and their involvement in the history of many countries, this is an OK (quick) source....that does not give you too much overload:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 10:29 PM

In our community, even eating meat on Friday and women wearing head cover at church was considered a commandment of God....and of course the church. EdT
                   ================

Such old habits die hard. When the then Pope abolished the Friday abstinence in 1964, my Stevenage school went on providing a fish alternative on Fridays. "You know, John," I said to one boy, "you don't have to get that fish any more; The Pope has said it's OK to eat meat on Friday." ~~ "It isn't The Pope, Sir," he replied cheerfully; "it's my mum."

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 03:42 AM

The idea of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist dates to early Christian times, most notably to the writings of St. Justin, Martyr, about 150 AD. Chapter 11 of I Corinthians is also referred to with regards to this, and Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John.

The doctrine of transubstantiation put this belief into the language of metaphysics. The doctrine was promulgated by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

I took a semester of metaphysics, and it just isn't the way I think; so I prefer the less-theoretical and less-legalistic concept of Real Presence. But yes, I believe that when I receive communion, I receive Christ. And as I said before, this is sacred to me - my faith is part of who I am and where I come from. I wouldn't expect others to believe this unless they are Catholics or members of other faiths that believe in the Real Presence, but it is something that is very sacred to me.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 06:07 AM

"In our community, even eating meat on Friday and women wearing head cover at church was considered a commandment of God....and of course the church. EdT"

The first was never a commandment of God but a precept of the Church (with which God expected Catholics to comply). In fact, it remains so - the only change is the schedule - now it's only on Ash Wednesday (coming up next week - buy that salmon filet now before they're gone!) and Fridays in Lent.

The second was neither, only a custom of the times.

Also, I'm not sure that many Anglicans were willing to die over the denial of transsubstantiation as a previous poster claimed. Anglicans like to stress that they believe in CONsubstantiation rather than TRANS, but that is largely a matter of semantics. Both Churches believe in the Real Presence, and the best explanation is that we believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist becasue He told us that He would be. Those of faith require no further explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 09:16 AM

"with which God expected Catholics to comply"

Kind of an odd statement

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 11:07 AM

Oh what a tangled web of hypocrisy we weave, when we attempt to rationalise "rights", "equality", "legality", "health issues","the real world".....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 11:09 AM

Paragraph No. 2358 of the RC Catechism : "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 11:44 AM

Well, Ed.T. I didn't know that was in the RC Catechism. I wonder how the Holy Father and so many others managed to miss it. How can we bring their error to their attention?

But seriously, is not the point about religious or spiritual practice that adherents must consider the options - if they see any - and make a choice to stick to?

For a believer, the "right" spiritutal practice is the one they feel, instinctively, brings them to God or as close as possible to that instinctive spiritual "home", a spiritual place of safety and security.

People who find that in their spiritual practice rarely, in my experience, are the type to get concerned with spiritual dogma or any sort of absolutism and generally are the least loudly proselytising.

People of different faiths and practice who have experienced that spiritual fulfilment share an idiom for describing it that cuts through a lot of the sort of internecine conflict that is often assumed to exist between people of differing religious practice.

So transubstantiation, consubstantiation, buddhist meditiation, jewish or muslim prayer. Different routes to the same place. Nobody should feel the need to justify any of it, and if you don't "get it", then it is unlikely anyone could rationalise it for you. If the practitioner doesn't use their experience as a weapon to attack others, what harm can there be?

One of the religious dogmas that bothers me most, is Atheism - as practiced by Dawkins et al. The fervour and zeal with which they strive to prove a negative - against all scientific principles that say such proof can never exist - and attack and demean and ridicule people for generally being good and nice, or for just finding a way through life that works for them, is every bit as disturbing as the worst zealotry that the main religions can offer.

Everyone seeks to find some internal understanding of their place in this universe and for a raison d'etre. Some people get it through religion, some people get it from a sense of their accidental and brief place in an impossibly awe-inspiring accidental universe, some people get it from their own place, daily life and family; and need look no further. Dawkins et al seem to be needing to find their's in a rather different and troubled way. Just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 12:09 PM

Royston ,

Often people see (not to be confused with the Holy See) what they wish to see, that reinforces...even justify, a decision taken for a variety of reasons...and ignore the rest. I would never suggest that any Holy Father from any religeon (just in case there is more than one) missed any piece of information or doctrine...as some may causuall, or otherwise, suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 01:52 PM

"Oh what a tangled web of hypocrisy we weave, when we attempt to rationalise "rights", "equality", "legality", "health issues", "the real world".....Ake"

Or to quote the original: "When first we practice to deceive".

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 02:53 PM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 09:52 PM

"with which God expected Catholics to comply"
Kind of an odd statement - EdT

Perhaps odd-sounding to a non-Catholic, but Ed, you claim to be - or to have been - a Catholic, so you should be aware of the source of the Church's mandate to 'bind and loose' in ecclesiastical matters like laws of fasting and abstinence. Few Catholics would dispute the Church's authority in such matters. The laws regarding, for example, mixed marriages have also changed over the years.

Whether that authority extends to matters not related to worship, such as which methods of birth control or fertility enhancement are acceptable, is another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 10:17 PM

Royston, I think I more-or-less see things the way you do. I have my own spiritual path, and I have no desire to impose that path on anybody else. I don't want to defend that path, become moving into defensive mode takes something away from it.
Still, I think there are many here who feel compelled to attack the spiritual paths that others take, without fully understanding those paths.
I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition, and I made it work - for me, and for a number of people who attend the classes I teach at church. I know other Catholics who follow paths that are completely foreign to me, particularly when their faith leads them to injustice and intolerance and blind obedience.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 11:46 PM

beeliner

Yes I was a Catholic for 40 odd years....and in fact I am very proud of my decision, and the right one, not to be directly associated with this church anymore. My chouice to leave was after such shameful priest actions with children and the coverup at highest levels.

When I left I became free and it opened my eyes and mind directly to Gods teachings the the Bible. ...not through the foggy lenses I once wore as an obedient member of the RC church. ...btw, Gods words directly guide all humans,not just Roman Catholics.

I recall when I attended RC catechism as a teen, our Priest openly tought us children that only Roman Catholics could go to heaven. I was the only person to speak up that this can not be the message of a kind God. I was ignored. And, this has been repeated in words and writings of more senor RC officials through the RC history. These are not the words of God....but of those who have strayed from Gods messages....for some other reasons.

When I words like "with which God expected Catholics to comply", I am reminded of the narrow vision I was taught as a RC....that God only speaks to Roman Catholics.

I do respect the choice of other loyal members of the Rome ruled church. and their dedication to their faith. However, if RCs expect respect from persons with other convictions, they must extend a similar respect to those with different views on religeon and Gods teachings.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: olddude
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:03 AM

I am a catholic, I also feel right at home in any denomination. I have attended services at everything from Baptist, Lutheran, Assembly of God and so on ... When one believes in God one doesn't worry about what building the go into to worship ... I practice the Catholic faith because I as of yet have had no reason to abandoned the church. However those that have there is nothing wrong with that either. One is free to follow God where ever they find themselves closer to him. Do I blindly follow the leaders of the Church, heck no ... any church has its good and bad since it is run by people. Faith in a church will always let you down, faith in God never does ...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:32 AM

I can sympathize with your experience, Ed. My experience as a Catholic was different, and I'm not sure why. I spent eight years in a seminary in Milwaukee, studying to become a priest. I left because I wanted to get married.

Yeah, I remember some people teaching "only Roman Catholics could go to heaven" - and I thought it was a delicious irony when the Catholic Church excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre, who taught just that.

I suppose I encountered a fair number of Catholic priests and nuns who were less-than-admirable people - but to me, they were just bad people, and not representative of the Catholic Church. And I'm not sure what causes the different perspective. It seemed to me that the good people were representative of the Church, and the bad ones were just bastards.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:42 AM

od, very well stated.   

Ed, the Church is its membership, of which its clergy and hierarchy are only a small part. They have great responsibility, and when they fail, that is their fault and not the fault of the faithful. But hey, as St. John said, "Whatever gets you through the night...".

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:45 AM

... the Catholic Church excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre, who taught just that.

Father Leonard Feeney also taught that and was similarly excommunicated.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:01 AM

"All those justified by faith through Baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have a right to be honored by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers and sisters in the Lord by the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church" Vatican 11

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:16 AM

Hey...not all people believe in the authority of the Catholic Church....and guess what??......Not all people believe in the authority of the state, either!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:35 AM

"All those justified by faith through Baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have a right to be honored by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers and sisters in the Lord by the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church" Vatican II

Absolutely, so all those referred to are, AT LEAST in a manner of speaking, Catholics. And that is what I SUSPECT the priest meant when he said that only Catholics are saved.

Either HE misinterpreted the Church's teaching or YOU misinterpreted his. I suspect the latter, but I wasn't there.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 10:28 AM

beeliner
Lets not play with words, it serves no purpose (as we are not in a political discussion) ....when the word "Catholic" is used in most cases the intended meaning is the Roman Catholic church. I do recognise that in a broader sense that the term catholic is more inclusive...but is rarely used as such, other than those in church theology . Just ask any protestant if they are a Catholic and see what response you get).

It wasn't until recent years that the RC Church recognized other Christian Churches....maybe for a number of historic and internal organizational reasons. The prevailing theory....and it was that....was Christ's words indicated that only the Roman Catholic church was to be Gods church, and the RC Pope Gods agent on Earth. (To me and millions of others, this is not the correct interpretation) This message was spread to RC followers was that other Christian churches were not following Gods will and direction (Orthodox, Protestant and others).... This thinking has been adjusted ....but only somewhat so....now that all Christian churches and christians are on a similar course...and some day will unify....but, under the RC church and the Pope. I would not hold my breath on that one.

No misinterpretation of the Priests words on my part , he made it clear, as I recall a that followers of the local protestant churches would not enter heaven, as they were not followers of the one and only Christian church...as tasked by Christ and God...the Roman Catholic church. This message was repeated more than once.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 10:36 AM

Thanks for that Joe Offer.

Yes there were a few priests excommunicated for the reasons you state, However, there were manny more good Christian folk excommunicated, shunned,careers shortened or impacted, tortured and even killed (Inquistions, Crusades, wars, political interventions, and through colonizations and missionary work) by the Roman Catholic church throughout history, and because they merely sought religeous thruth, a different Christian direction and interpretation than the Roman Catholic church...or were seeking scientific knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 10:55 AM

A question:
Do RC's actually believe in the dogma of "papal infallibility" as presented to the faithful as necessary to their salvation?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:34 AM

The prevailing theory....and it was that....was Christ's words indicated that only the Roman Catholic church was to be Gods church, and the RC Pope Gods agent on Earth. (To me and millions of others, this is not the correct interpretation) This message was spread to RC followers was that other Christian churches were not following Gods will and direction (Orthodox, Protestant and others)....

OK, but I would state the same thing differently, and more succinctly: Other Christian churches are either schismatic or heretical. Christ gave the keys of heaven to the apostles and their successors, not to every so-called 'reformer' who decides to invent his own bastardized version of Christianity.

Do RC's actually believe in the dogma of "papal infallibility" as presented to the faithful as necessary to their salvation?

Again, stated differently: RC's believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church inerrently in matters of doctrine, stated ex cathedra and usually after years on even decades of study by the pope and the other bishops. That has always been the Church's belief, long before Pius IX. Most of these doctrines trace their roots to the earliest centuries of Christianity, and the Church regards these traditions, along with Scripture, as divinely revealed.

So I'm not disagreeing with you so much as just looking at it from the other side of the street, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:30 PM

beeliner , you would make a good politician... many of these folks are good at   never answering a question directly, but redefine it to their best advantage:)

Here is what I understand to be the case:

I see that the defining statement of Christ was " "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church" The RC church   interpret this to mean that Peter and those directly following (Popes) are made Gods main (and thus, infallable) agent on Earth.

Other Christian religeons do not interpret these words that . This interpretation is that   "the rock" is the Christian churches not any one human person, Peter or any one person following who claims to be the one human representative of God on Earth (the Pope to the RC church).

In the RC church, "The Pope is, then, "the Bishop of the Catholic Church," her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine. Other bishops are his lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate's unity.

According to RC ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it".

One other Christian example is The Orthodox Church , that teaches that "all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom)".

Orthodoxy teaches that every bishop, "the living icon of Christ," and his flock constitute the Church in a certain place; or, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer says, the Church of Christ is in the bishop, his priests and deacons, with the people, surrounding the Eucharist in the true faith. All bishops and their flocks so constituted, together composing the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".

You state "Christ gave the keys of heaven to the apostles and their successors". Yes, but, millions of very religeous (few of them bastards) do not believe that this means the RC Pope alone takes on that role.

I don't quite know where you are going with the words " schismatic, heretical and bastardized" christianity. Sounds like a throw back to some of the early and sorry RC church times. If so, I suggest your beliefs are out-of-step with the course and teachings of the current RC church. ...but, if as I interpret, that is your decision and cross to bear.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:39 PM

Gee wizz, let's start by remembering the fundamental fact about organised Christianity - they killed ten million people, and the brutality of their wars of conquest has made "crusade" a term of abuse across the middle east to this day.

Not, I think, that any other imaginary friend is any better, but the idea that there is truth or rationality in the Roman Catholic church is fantastic.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:01 PM

Here is what I understand to be the case..I suggest your beliefs are out-of-step with the course and teachings of the current RC church

Well, most of that is reasonably accurate, if I had more time I could break it down point by point, but firstly, you seem to define papal infallibility quite broadly when it is in fact quite narrow.

Papal encyclicals, for example, while obviously regarded as authoritative by Catholics, do not meet the requirements of infallibility.

Secondly, I am not giving my beliefs but what I understand the Church's positions to be. If you think I've stated some of those positions incorrectly, you might be right.

Feel free to offer specific corrections.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:50 PM

'organised Christianity - they killed ten million people, and the brutality of their wars of conquest has made "crusade" a term of abuse across the middle east to this day'.

Now we could be getting closer to identifying the real "bastards" of history, whose legacy we still deal with today:)

If the pope is infallible....then why has the RC church changed so much in theology, from one pope to the next, throughout history. Is the proof not in the RC church's "historic pudding", so to say?

If the wisdom of the pope is infallible within the RC church, and he is Gods representative, who the faithful are to follow...by membership....then why do so many RCs not follow what the pope says is the path of the RC church. Specifically, lets say on birth control and on divorce?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:55 PM

Well, now we're going 'round in circles. The pope's 'wisdom' is not infallible nor does the Church claim that.

The Church believes and teaches that the Holy Spirit guides it infallibly in ex cathedra pronouncements on matters of faith and morals.

These matters are studied for years or even decades before such proclamations are made, but only the pope is authorized to make the actual pronouncement, hence the phrase 'papal infallibility'.

Moral teachings on more mundane matters such as marriage and family planning are in a different category entirely. They are regarded seriously by observant Catholics but do not meet the standards of infallibility and sometimes do change. A good example is the Church's attitude toward usury, once condemned but now tolerated as a facet of modern society.

But again, we've already been here. If the discussion doesn't progress I'm going back to posting about music.

While I don't doubt that you were once a Catholic as you claim, you seem to have forgotten a lot, or possibly weren't paying attention.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 09:07 PM

Where has the church changed its theology since 1870? Let alone with every single pope.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 09:28 PM

Yes. beeliner. I suggest you return to your conmfort of music. Or political doubletalk.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 10:35 PM

We badly need a Papal Infallibility Disclaimer. I have a draft, to help:
The term is not meant in any way to state in any manner what is normally understood or defined as " Infallible".

Infallibility applies to teachings of the Pope only when he is speaking on behalf of the whole church and in ways that are consistent with its councils, and with the collective wisdom of its cardinals and bishops as the truth has been revealed to them over time. And, when the Pope is speaking about matters of faith or morals, that applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals.

The doctrine of papal infallibility does not imply that the Pope is without sin or cannot make a mistake, be a bad example, will teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that he will make intelligentdecisions or agree with infallible pronouncements of previous popes. A pope's private theological opinions are not infallible, but only that which he defines as infallible teaching. When the Vatican issues a statement of the Pope such statements should not be regarded as being infallible, representative of theRC church nor even authoritative for RC followers and other Christians.

:)


Now Back to the original topic, since it is clear that the word Papal Infallibility does not really mean that much to those outside the RC church in common sense terms (and maybe even to some within).

The main reason I raised papal infallibility is because of the comments in this news article that related to the RC Popes statements on using condoms to reduce the spread of HIV:

http://www.cath4choice.org/PopeNotInfallibleonCondoms.asp

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: olddude
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:04 PM

infallibility applies only to the sacraments, that is the fact. There are 7 of them, communion, confession, baptism etc ...

that is a very narrow and very specific set that applies. Other discussions such as condom use or politics he is speaking for himself and that is the true fact. When he talks about sacraments he has most catholics attention, when he talks about other matters like most Catholics we accept or ignore. The church any church is made up of people, people fail, people succeed, but they are human. God doesn't fail, people do. I get sick of the bashing, if one doesn't like people of faith no one is shoving their beliefs at you or forcing you to believe anything. Likewise those with faith don't go around bashing those who don't. It is your own path and the free will is terribly important I think. There is not any denomination that doesn't have abuse, The Catholic church is the largest of Christian churches with over a billion members hence it will have a higher number of abuse cases by virtue of the numbers of people. Likewise there are many many athiest that do their share of abuse but myself and everyone else I know with faith don't go lumping every atheist in the same category, one only has to look at the violence in Africa or the killing fields in Cambodia or Stalin ... I only know that when bad things happen, like the hurricane that hit New Orleans, it was the people of faith that were there first to help while the red cross waited.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: olddude
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:21 PM

there is also no passage in the bible that says the pope is free from failure. Any church has laws and rules etc. ... like most Christians I can clearly differentiate between the law of God and a man made law or concept. Most like myself believe it was instituted when the pope had political power in the middle ages. hence no one would question his authority .. Now if he want to tell me I have to go to confession before I go to communion, ok fair enough. If he tells me I can not use a condom I like most Catholics will say .. thanks for the advice but do what we know is the right thing to do ... too much is made of that concept that rarely even mentioned in Sunday school classes any more

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:28 PM

"The main reason I raised papal infallibility is because of the comments in this news article that related to the RC Popes statements on using condoms to reduce the spread of HIV:"

Doesn't apply, as the article points out. But now we are back to square one as the linked website advocates what poster mousethief suggested earlier: that the Church should be advising people how to sin rather than how not to!

Outrageous, ludicrous and downright pathetic!

But once again, I have no objection whatever to the various social agencies distributing such information non-judgmentally.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:33 PM

I said that? Boy where did I go wrong? Maybe where I believed that the Church ought to reduce harm to human beings. Clearly that doesn't matter. The church would rather people die horribly than use a condom. Dying horribly isn't sinful. Fuck 'em.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 02:24 AM

I dunno, Alex (mousethief). It sounds like you're spinning words and getting pretty melodramatic there. The Catholic Church would rather people not have sex outside of marriage, which would certainly do a lot to prevent the horrible deaths caused by AIDS. Condoms aren't really needed for controlling AIDS in a monogamous married couple who practice marital fidelity.

The primary right-wrong issue here is marital fidelity - birth control comes a far second. If a person doesn't practice the rule of fidelity, then why would he/she bother to follow a rule about condoms? It just doesn't make sense. Sorry, Alex, but your condemnation sounds a lot like propaganda.

---

And then Richard Bridge makes a statement about the fundamental fact about organised Christianity - they killed ten million people....yeah, I suppose that in the 2,000 years of Christianity, it might be that ten million people were killed in the name of Christianity. I do agree that's shameful; but I would venture a guess that most of those killings were done under the guise of Christianity, but the fundamental reasons were political and economic.

I heard a quote somewhere: "When men want to fight, they will always find a reason to fight."

Sometimes I think it's most honest to say that killing is done for the sake of killing - all other reasons given are simply excuses.

The Catholic Church was a fair-sized nation for much of history. The Pope controlled the central third of Italy and was a major political player in Europe. He was much more a political figure, than he was a religious leader. Most popes rarely bothered to dabble in religion. In the last 150 years, Christianity has cleaned up its act, and the killings have continued for more openly political and economic reasons. The de-politicization of the papacy has one side effect that makes me nervous: the "cult" of the papacy. After the Pope ceased to be a political leader, be became regarded as a holy man - and many popes have not lived up to that expectation.

-----

The doctrine of infallibility was promulgated in the 1870s by the First Vatican Council. Since then, there have been two infallible doctrines: the doctrine of infallibility itself, and the doctrine that the body of Mary was taken into heaven after her death. They still haven't decided whether it was infallible when John Paul II said that the Church has no authority to ordain women. It was worded in a way that it could later be said that the Church had no authority to ordain women at the time - which was true, since huge numbers of Catholics were not ready to accept ordained women in the early 2000s, and ordaining women at the time would have been ecclesiastical suicide - or something like that. Infallible doctrines are usually written in incontrovertible language - and this one wasn't. My jury is still out on that one.

Infallible doctrines are teachings on a level with the articles of the Nicene Creed that is held by most Christians, and those doctrines don't come around every day. All other teachings are subject to change and evolution - and even the infallible ones are subject to reinterpretation. There are NO infallible teachings on divorce or birth control. And note that it is certain teachings, not the Pope, that are classed as infallible. Speaking of the Pope as infallible is imprecise and misleading.

That being said, I think time has proved that the Doctrine of Infallibility has been more trouble than it was worth, and it certainly has caused a lot of confusion and ill will.

Bear in mind that I have always had a healthy suspicion of Upper Management. My faith is based in my faith community - my parish - not in Rome. Rome is necessary, but not necessarily inspiring.

And if my parish wasn't inspiring, I've worked to change it - and I've been quite successful. I admit that I avoid parishes that appear to have no hope of reform. Why shouldn't I?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:11 AM

Joe Offer: "I dunno, Alex (mousethief). It sounds like you're spinning words. The Catholic Church would rather people not have sex outside of marriage, which would certainly do a lot to prevent the horrible deaths caused by AIDS. Condoms aren't really needed for controlling AIDS in a monogamous married couple who practice marital fidelity.

The primary right-wrong issue here is marital fidelity - birth control comes a far second. If a person doesn't practice the rule of fidelity, then why would he/she bother to follow a rule about condoms? It just doesn't make sense. Sorry, Alex, but your condemnation sounds a lot like propaganda."

I was raised Catholic, but am not one now. Though I've had my differences with their doctrines, the one Joe Offer offers, is absolutely true, and is common sense, whether you're a Catholic or not!
Some things transcend dogma, or political beliefs. Those of you who came out of the 60's, should have learned by now, that much of the reckless stuff that was done back then, was done out of rebellion, experimentation, and immaturity. Very very little came out of it that was forwarding, except getting past it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:33 AM

Well said Sanity, and Joe, and Beeliner.
The fightback has begun!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:37 AM

Now, Alex, I realize that government may be required to offer alternatives to people who insist on doing something dumb, but do churches have to do that, too?

The electrical extension cords I've bought lately have a metallic instructions sticker that tells people not to put anything metallic in the outlet end of the cord. Why do people need instructions for an extension cord? And why do the instructions stickers have to be metallic?

If a church tells its members to practice only monogamous sex, is it bound to offer alternatives for those who prefer not to be monogamous? Can't they let the non-monogamists figure things out on their own?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:53 AM

"The de-politicization of the papacy has one side effect that makes me nervous: the "cult" of the papacy. After the Pope ceased to be a political leader, be became regarded as a holy man - and many popes have not lived up to that expectation."

If the pope is so de-politicsied, then why is he making proclamations on the legislation of a democracy that is none of his business? Of course, you could argue that he's only preaching to the Catholic congregation but this law will effect us all and like it or not most people don't go to church in this country any more, and the pope is an utter irrelevance.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:56 AM

Well....why are you posting here?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:06 AM

"Well....why are you posting here?"

a) Because the pope's intervention is a political act and that merits discussion.

b) I enjoy the debate and might learn something.

c) I fervently believe religion and state should be kept separate and religious leaders should minister to their flock alone.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 07:58 AM

"(I get sick of the bashing, if one doesn't like people of faith no one is shoving their beliefs at you or forcing you to believe anything"

Peoples faith is indeed that persons business. But, these issues go far beyond individual faith, and does impact others....RC, non RC Christian and a whole gaggle of other people in this world.

This current Pope (and past ones) has put his views in the public domain on many issues, beyond individual faith, that impact many folks, RC and otherwis. So a discussion of that is indeed proper and I suspect responsible.

Consider this statement in regard to the issue being limited to birth control. The issue is loglically broader. Marital fidelity is a worthy goal, as is no sex prior or outside marriage. But, is likely not realitic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7951839.stm

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 02:05 PM

"If a person doesn't practice the rule of fidelity, then why would he/she bother to follow a rule about condoms?"

To avoid catching and spreading disease, I'd imagine. It doesn't follow that those inclined to infidelity should necessarily have a death-wish or any desire to harm their spouse by infection, or court the risk of their infidelity being discovered.

"Can't they let the non-monogamists figure things out on their own?"

Quite right, as long as the condoms are freely available as a preventative health measure, alongside sufficient and appropriate education.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 02:16 PM

If you live in the real world "Keep it in your pants until some mumbo-jumbo has been said over it" simply does not work. People don't.


But more extraordinary is the hypocrisy of a bedful of papist priests - a calling that has long long had more than its fair share of himosexuals (coinage intended) - deciding to discriminate against homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 02:16 PM

Please ignore the first half of my last post, on account of it being nonsense.
Or edit as necessary. Ta.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:02 PM

"Keep it in your pants until some mumbo-jumbo has been said over it" simply does not work.

On the contrary, I've found that a little light conversation can be quite conducive :-)

Nevertheless, a good point.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:30 PM

Now, Alex, I realize that government may be required to offer alternatives to people who insist on doing something dumb, but do churches have to do that, too?

Only if they care about people dying. It's all too obvious they don't.

If a church tells its members to practice only monogamous sex, is it bound to offer alternatives for those who prefer not to be monogamous?

Only if they care about people dying. Clearly they don't.

Can't they let the non-monogamists figure things out on their own?

If they don't give a fuck about people dying, I guess they can. And obviously they don't.

Compassionate humans would care more than about their rules being followed; they'd care about what happens to people who don't follow their rules. But the RCC doesn't give a flying fuck about that. If you don't follow our rules, die for all we care. And people do. And you don't care.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM

If YOU care so much about people dying, why do you want everyone to ignore the hiv figures?

Joe is correct,the head of any church could never condone promiscuity. At last we've got a religious leader prepared to comment on the type of sexual society "liberalism" has created.

Advice on the sexual health of risk takers, should be confined to the medical profession.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:58 PM

American liberalism has created a sexual society in sub saharan Africa? You're way out of touch with reality, ake.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:25 PM

From " Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition"

The (RC) Church has always sought to embody our Savior's concern for the sick. The gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry draw special attention to his acts of healing: he cleansed a man with leprosy (Mt 8:1-4; Mk 1:40-42); he gave sight to two people who were blind (Mt 20:29-34; Mk 10:46-52); he enabled one who was mute to speak (Lk 11:14); he cured a woman who was hemorrhaging (Mt 9:20-22; Mk 5:25-34); and he brought a young girl back to life (Mt 9:18, 23-25; Mk 5:35-42). Indeed, the Gospels are replete with examples of how the Lord cured every kind of ailment and disease (Mt 9:35). In the account of Matthew, Jesus' mission fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases" (Mt 8:17; cf. Is 53:4).

Jesus' healing mission went further than caring only for physical affliction. He touched people at the deepest level of their existence; he sought their physical, mental, and spiritual healing (Jn 6:35, 11:25-27). He "came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly" (Jn 10:10).

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:37 PM

So? Does that mean the church has ever said, "But if you can't keep it in your pants, put one of these on it"? I fail to see why your post is in the least relevant to the conversation, Ed T.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:43 PM

The point is the RC Church has a committment to care for and about the health of people....which goes back to Christs teachings and example.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:53 PM

I don't understand why Joe is taking so much flak from some quarters. The question is a reasonable one: what do you expect from the RC church?

The Church has no choice but to advise people who want to stay free of STI's and unwanted pregnancy, to abstain from sex. As a piece of advice it trumps all others. Don't have sex and are 100% guaranteed never to get pregnant and never to get an STI.

How could anyone expect the church to counsel against its moral code, and in doing so to give inferior health protection advice to people? It just doesn't make sense in its own terms.

That is why we have secular health-care services and that is why the churches subcontract health outreach to medical professionals who practice without religious fear or favour. I have experience in the developing world where secular NGO's and CAFOD / Red Cross / Red Crescent have been working together on health and social care programs including contraception and HIV prevention and treatment. So it is not right to portray "The Church(es)" as irrelevant, callous and uncaring. My experience of the health outreach by the RC Church matches Ed. T's last published directive (post 06:25)

It would probably be more helpful if there appeared to be fewer pronouncements on these issues from Rome, but then I suspect that many of the "pronouncements" are not in fact anything of the sort but are the work of the militant atheists making sure that these areas of contention and subtlety are relentlessly brought to the fore and rammed back down people's throats.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:56 PM

For the avoidance of doubt, and to bring this back to the OP's intention, I do not agree that the pope should be allowed to say what he did about our desire for a tolerant and prejudice-free society without getting a well-deserved slapdown for his efforts. That is a different thing entirely. That is the bizarre spectacle of a Christian campaigning for the right to be, well, un-Christian to people he doesn't like. Very odd indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 07:41 PM

I found the story of this this high level RC dignatary an interesting read (especially the inscription on the memorial stone). Could he have been sending an early message....to future, more understanding RCs?

The below piece is from Wikipedia, but it is supported by other articles....this being the most concise:

John Henry Newman, (21 February 1801 – 11 August 1890) an English Roman Catholic priest, cardinal, influencial in the RC Church, eventually reaching Sainthood.   Formerly a priest in the Church of England.

The sexuality of Newman and his circle has long been a subject for conjecture. Much of the evidence is ambiguous.

His deepest emotional relationships were with younger men who were his disciples. The most significant of these, Ambrose St John who lived with Newman as companion from 1843 for 32 years. Newman wrote after the death of Ambrose St John in 1875: "I have ever thought no bereavement was equal to that of a husband's or a wife's, but I feel it difficult to believe that any can be greater, or any one's sorrow greater, than mine."At his own request, Newman was buried in the same grave as Ambrose St John. He had stated on three occasions his desire to be buried with his friend, including shortly before his death in 1890: "I wish, with all my heart, to be buried in Fr Ambrose St John's grave — and I give this as my last, my imperative will", he wrote, later adding: "This I confirm and insist on."

In accordance with his expressed wishes, Newman was buried in the grave of his lifelong friend, Ambrose St. John. The pall over the coffin bore his cardinal's motto Cor ad cor loquitur ("Heart speaks to heart"Inseparable in death as in life, a joint memorial stone was erected for the two men; the inscription bore words Newman had chosen: Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem "Out of shadows and phantasms into the truth"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 08:09 PM

I have to add that I don't agree with Catholic Church teaching on birth control, and I have disregarded that teaching when I saw fit to do so. Nonetheless, I do think that church authorities have a right to have an opinion on the matter, and to express that opinion.

I also believe that churches have a right and an obligation to speak out on matters of morals and social justice, even when those matters are being discussed or dealt with in a political forum. To me, "separation of church and state" means that churches must not be involved in the operation of government - but they certainly have a right to speak out strongly about what government does or fails to do.

But to demand that churches be silent on moral matters, is ludicrous.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:07 PM

England history is ripe with laws that limited catholics property and education rights, freedoms to openly practice their religeon or hold public office until around 1745. The rights of RCs were limited by acts that established royal supremacy in the Church of England and civil disabilities were imposed on those who remained in communion with Rome.

Elizabeth I made it impossible for Catholics to hold civil offices and imposed severe penalties upon Catholics who persisted in recognizing papal authority. Fines and prison sentences were prescribed for all who did not attend Anglican services, and the celebration of the Mass was forbidden under severe penalties. Laws even required holders of public office to take various oaths of loyalty and to receive the sacrament of the Church of England.

Jesuits and other priests were expelled (1585) from England under penalty of treason, and harboring or aiding priests was declared a capital offense. A number of Catholics were executed for treason.

Now the RC pope wants to limit the freedom of others, to supports the right of churches to discriminate against others in accordance with their religious ethos.

Sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:08 PM

For some odd reason most of my earlier post dissapeared in transit?

Odd, I am truly not ilfallible.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:12 PM

My typingis fallible, as noted by the many typos.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:13 PM

Catholic Emancipation, 1829.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:38 PM

Ed, that's because you're not typing ex Cathedra.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:54 PM

Good one, mousethief

UK Folks:

Check out the Anti-discrimination laws in the USA, Canada and the Netherlands....they seem to work well in these countries. I even know a protestant who answers the phone in a Canadian Jewish Center....without issues. The church going folks seem contented by the situation.

http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Canada%2Banti+discri

Seems like the RC pope can accept to potentially employ a sinner who has broken all ten Commandments but is repulsed by exposure of his flok to a gay girl or guy.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:57 PM

mousethief, I know, it's flock...a spelling mistake not a typo that time:) Time to rest the mind.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 11:00 PM

So you're not a flocking fool?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 02:52 AM

I'm still not clear about the details of the proposed UK legislation that the Pope complained about. Occasionally, I see mention of something the Catholic Church does in some country, that would be a clear violation of the American principle of separation of church and state. My immediate repose is usually, "Gee, I can't believe the Catholic Church is demanding THAT." The Catholic Church doesn't bother asking for a lot of stuff in the U.S., because even the U.S. bishops would feel ill at ease about crossing the church/state line.

But I do wonder about anti-discrimination laws and how far they go. Do Democrats have to hire Republicans? In the UK, do Conservatives have to hire BNP members, or is it only homosexual BNP members that they have to hire?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:11 AM

Joe,

In very broad terms, UK Anti-discrimination law presently outlaws any form of discrimination, in employment, against any person on grounds of race, colour, religion, sex and sexuality.

There are excetions for positions that the employer can prove require a an exception. For instance, an employer can specify that a particular position can only be applied for by women; let us say the position of a counselor in a refuge for women escaping abuse in the home.

In the provision of services, however, things are a little different. A hotelier cannot refuse a room on grounds of race or colour, but they can refuse a room to a gay person or couple.

A Catholic adoption agency cannot refuse to counsel and provide their services on grounds of race or religious belief, but they can refuse to offer their services to a gay couple.

The new legislation is supposed - whether it succeeds in so doing remains to be seen - to consolidate and extend existing legislation, to close perceived discrimination loopholes. Those loopholes seem, in the main, to relate to discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and in the provision of services to the public.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:50 AM

"In the UK, do Conservatives have to hire BNP members, or is it only homosexual BNP members that they have to hire?"

No has to hire anyone, but the idea of the bill is to make it against the law to be able to discriminate against someone capable of doing a job because of their age, gender, race, religious or sexual orientation. Last week the BNP was forced into accepting non-white members for the first time by equality laws - no bad thing there then. Check out the link in the second post for an idea of why it's proving contentious (a true blue paper to boot - no leftist viewpoint to muddy the waters there).

Of course, this is a problem for the Catholic Church which won't allow the ordination of women and homosexuals, and they see the equality laws threatening their right to discriminate against these two groups. Of course, you could cite theological reasons for not allowing these group into the clergy and it's not peculiar to the the RC church (after all the Taliban share the same view).

"But to demand that churches be silent on moral matters, is ludicrous."

Only to members of that church, and this is a legislative matter for a democratically elected Government, and will effect far more than religious groups rather than a moral dilemma. I've no problem with a person's personal faith or their expression of it as long as it hurts no one else. In this case, the Pope is trying to influence a decision that the will affect the rest of us and that's not on. By making this statement he invites discussion and criticism for those of us who want to live in a fair and equal society.

"The Catholic Church doesn't bother asking for a lot of stuff in the U.S., because even the U.S. bishops would feel ill at ease about crossing the church/state line."

Here in the UK people don't like being told what to do by some bloke who's never even been to this country, and we too hold the divide between church and state as one of our most cherished principles (Charles I pushed his luck too far with that one), regardless of political persuasion (sorry Ake - can't blame them commie pinko's for that one).

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 05:09 AM

Cross-post :-)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 05:55 AM

"Of course, this is a problem for the Catholic Church which won't allow the ordination of women and homosexuals"

Not sure about the Ebglish legislation. But in most countries, where it exists, exemptions are made for valid reasons....for example priests, ministers etc.
But, the reason must ve significant to be valid (possibly not the person answering the phone).

I recall a case in Canada, where a historic fort refused to employ a black person as a uniformed guard for toiurist visits, stating it was not historically accurate, since blacks were not in the Military based in Canada at that point in colonial history. The reason was not viewed as significant or reasonable and the fort was required to rmploy the black person...with no future complaints from tourists.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 06:22 AM

Another related article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020202834.html

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 01:08 PM

mmmm One of my entries seems to have gone missing! A pity as it wasn't a bad one and hopefully didn't set out to offend. If anybody else has suffered this, do say as if a lot go missing, no wonder the thread seems a bit disjointed!

One main problem with this and indeed any thread where religion is involved is that people try to make rational debate in an area where reason packed it's bags and went for a fortnight in Skegness. If you try to question the role or right of religious leaders, you are accused of being a hate merchant, Dawkins fan or troll. None of which is helpful.

The Pope does have a job on trying to keep superstition relevant, as more people realise how absurd the whole concept really is. Sorry if I (and the vast majority of people) fall into the category of questioning the influence of something based on fairy stories and cast as fact, but whilst it may float many peoples' boat, that doesn't mean it should have a voice outside of it's own pulpits.

The Pope is meeting with Irish Bishops as I type, and the subject matter makes perpetuating superstition through organised methods even less wanted by society.

I don't resent people being religious, I don't want them to stop using scriptures as their moral code. Just don't be offended when I and many others feel it is an irrelevant cause when using it to make a point to the rest of us.

It is quite obvious that if there is grand design, it doesn't have a white beard or indeed a belly button.... And it's so called representative on Earth makes himself look silly claiming he knows the dude's mobile number.

---

Probably this one, deleted because it was anonymous. -Joe-

UserName	ThreadName	Subject	Posted
GUEST	BS: At last a Pope talks some sense	RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense	12-Feb-10
Bryn Pugh has had an experience that would shake the faith of any God botherer. Sadly, there is something bad about democracy. if more than 50% of the public don't think that religions prey on the weak and exploit people to their own awful ends, then they are free to carry on playing with peoples' minds in the way less recognised cults are prosecuted for. You see, the problem is that religions still have such a hold. It is easy to be rational in all things and still defend imaginary friends, enforced moral codes and clinging to "facts" that are knocked down by science on a daily basis. if religion peddlars accepted that their stories are, as many theologians agree, allegories, then all would be not so bad. BUT they want us to accept them as sincere whilst asking us to believe things that are not possible, such as age of the earth, made in God's image, a virgin birth via angels, rising from the dead, conjuring tricks etc etc. And that's before we get the old testament! Sadly, if you point out the fallacy they are asking us to buy into, you are accused of knocking religion. Quite. And, he says, coming off the fence properly this time, I for one resent having our law making structures influenced by an ex member of the Nazi Youth who tries telling us what equality means......

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 01:10 PM

Well, I'd like to see the Catholic Church ordain married people and women and homosexuals - but I don't want some government requiring that. When it comes to hiring people who will serve as spokespersons, I think an organization needs to be unrestricted.

Here in California, the Catholic Church has gotten a fair amount of flak for its stance on immigration, and some for its opposition to the death penalty. I'd certainly be appalled if anything were done to curtail its right to speak out on such issues.

And as an employer, I do think the Pope has a right to speak out against legislation that he feels will affect his rights as an employer - even though I might well disagree with his hiring decisions. I don't see his statement on this anti-discrimination law proposal as speaking out on a moral issue - he's talking as an employer here. And isn't that his right? He did not compel anybody to do anything - he just said what he thought about the issue.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 03:05 PM

UK equality and anti-discrimination laws don't compel anyone to do anything. No-one is forced to employ someone they don't want to employ, and as far as I understand any alleged discrimination has to be proved in a Court of Law if it isn't freely admitted. The Pope's rights as an employer aren't affected; he can still employ who he likes, he just needs better reasons for not employing who he doesn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 03:11 PM

Well, Willie, the "Nazi Youth" crack is a cheap shot, since there's no evidence Ratzinger/Benedict was anything more than a nominal member - and Hitler Jugend membership was required of everyone who lived where he lived. What would you have done?
Yes, there are religious literalists who insist on absolute acceptance of the "facts" they believe - but there are lots of us who see religion as an idealistic lifestyle expressed in allegory and poetry and folklore and mysticism. Ratzinger/Benedict tends more in that direction, than one might think.

-Joe-

And Smokey, I don't know that I agree with the Pope on this anti-discrimination issue - I just think he has a right to speak his mind about it. If people disagree with him, they should be able to refute his position, not his Hitler Jugend membership or his right to speak on an issue that affects his church.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 06:08 PM

Why do the "activists" not protest about the Catholic church refusing to accept married MEN as priests?

Surely the civil rights of a vastly greater number of people are involved.
Could it be, that support of married folks is not on the "liberal" agenda?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 11:21 PM

They do accept married men as priests under certain conditions, they just don't allow priests to marry. Historically, that seems to be more about money and property than moral values.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 03:14 AM

The irony is that in the Latin Rite, the married priests the Catholic Church accepts, are generally refugees from other denominations, men who are fleeing churches who ordain homosexuals and women. And generally, they are far more conservative than the celibate priests are.

The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox churches, have always had married clergy.

But yes, most Catholic organizations that campaign for ordination of women and homosexuals, also campaign for an end to the celibacy requirement. In the US, the primary organization supporting these causes is Call to Action. I don't belong to Call to Action, but I've participated in many of their activities.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 04:17 AM

"And as an employer, I do think the Pope has a right to speak out against legislation that he feels will affect his rights as an employer"

If this was the Archbishop of Westminster speaking I would encourage the debate; I think it's important all voices are heard in these matters and all views given consideration, but we should not accept the pope (or any religious/political leader from outside the country) using their influence to affect law making in a democratically elected secular government.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:32 AM

Ah! Always remember to put your name in the box Willie... My bad, sorry Joe.

I don't reckon my reference to Nazi Youth membership was a cheap shot really. (Although I am aware that on internet chats, invoking any Hitler comparison is normally a sign of losing an argument! Could be a sign, who knows.....)

There were many people who chose not to do as they were told and perhaps suffered as a result. if this guy had the courage of his conviction then he made a strange decision. Me? I don't have any courage whatsoever, so would have gone with the flow even though I didn't believe in it. A bit like being dragged to a church for a wedding or funeral. I go because I don't have the courage to say to pious friends and relatives that I find their acceptance of fantasy and myth rather disturbing as they are (in the main) otherwise rather rational.

Like I said above somewhere, I have no issue with people believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden or non chemical / biological reasons why somebody gravely ill makes a recovery. But, please keep it in your club or society. if you keep trying to influence society using your creed as a must do for everybody else, don't be surprised or offended if the rest of us have a laugh at your reasoning, or resent any success you have.

I reckon Harriot Harman's new bill is a silly one and was at the very least not necessary as existing laws preclude prejudice. If that wasn't bad enough, she appears to have given religions a status above other laws by allowing bigoted hatred of peoples' lifestyles choice to be tolerated by Government.

And that needs questioning. it really does.    Sadly, it galvanises people against religion rather than live & let live. (Not that such a phrase exists in any interpretation of old scrolls, obviously.)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 12:38 PM

Yeah, but Jack, what exactly do you mean by "using their influence to affect law making" - opening his mouth?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 03:54 PM

I thought in this particular case he was actually addressing his British bishops in Rome. Even I can't see anything wrong in that.

Anyone wishing to see inappropriate people using their influence to affect law making need look no further than the House of Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 09:38 PM

How damaging would it be if one of these RC Job postings (in Irealnd) was a homosexual in a committed relationship?
http://www.indeed.co.uk/jobs?q=Roman+Catholic&start=30



This one is especially interesting :
http://www.nijobfinder.co.uk/jobs/job.php?j=91743&s=5393957&i=444&c=1942

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:22 PM

It's about time that an important bloke like the Pope spoke out about the stupid equality laws made by this labour government!!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:15 PM

He'd look a bit silly - I don't think this labour government has made any yet, have they?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:58 PM

Should the UK labour government comment and possibly launch a meaningful investigation into child sex abuse scandal in the UK involving the Catholic Church, to determine if there was knowledge and cover up....and just how high up in organization? After all, child sex abuse is criminal activity, and can the church be trusted to investigarte itself?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:37 PM

No-one can be trusted to investigate themselves, but there hasn't been a child sex abuse scandal in the UK involving the Catholic Church yet. Thankfully (hopefully) we don't have a government who would allow the degree of Catholic influenced corruption in the police, social services and relevant inspectorate necessary for such a situation to arise as it did in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 11:10 PM

Maybe so....butthe more you look around the world, the more you find:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/paedophile_pri

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 06:25 AM

To be fair, this is not about the Catholic church's failure to eradicate abuse, although that alone should be enough for them to keep their "Holier than thou" comments to themselves for a while. Mind you, a few hundred years ago, they forged a document that allowed them to rule parts of Italy but that's another story. Not to mention sanctioning the Spanish inquisition and profiting from the wholesale slaughter of what is now Latin America.

No, this is about a stance by a sovereign government to introduce a law that says everybody is equal and has the right to live in a meritocracy, regardless of race, creed, colour or sex.

Not difficult, not a problem and not really necessary as employment equality is enshrined in other laws.

But, as ever, some clubs, mainly religions, want opt outs. Why? if a person is capable of being a cleaner, clerk, shop manager, carpenter, caretaker, manager whatever, and a job that fits their capabilities comes up, why should being a woman or a gay person make them ineligible to apply?

It is as simple as that. No buts, no ifs, just simply an unnecessary piece of legislation that describes common sense.

Clearly, the reaction from absurd men in pointy hats makes me realise we need it anyway. Typical of Harriet Harman and her incompetent cronies that the people it was aimed at have shown her to be a weak feeble idiot and she has created inequality with a bill to eradicate it.

I don't blame religious leaders for spewing out their hate and bigotry no more than I blame a puppy for shitting on the carpet, I blame politicians for bowing before them.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:13 AM

but there hasn't been a child sex abuse scandal in the UK involving the Catholic Church yet

Here's one: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2007/11/22/secret-sins-of-the-priest-from-hell-finally-catch-him-up-72703-20145010/

& hundreds more...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:17 AM

(again)

but there hasn't been a child sex abuse scandal in the UK involving the Catholic Church yet

Here's one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8059908.stm

& here's another: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2007/11/22/secret-sins-of-the-priest-from-hell-finally-catch-him-up-72703-20145010/

& hundreds more...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:11 AM

Good points GUEST,Steamin' Willie .

The main reason I bring it up is to point the hyprocasy of this Pope, and those he replaced.

On one hand to speak out not too stealthy) against those who are homosexual lifestyles (and to a lesser degree women) and on the other to ignore dasterdly and illegal acts that was going on inside his own church doors for centuaries (I suspect) and those who condoned, turned a blind eye to it, or enabled it to happen.

I would expect a leader, who claims to be infallable (though it is fuzzy as to what) , to represent Christ on Earth to act differentlt.   I find it difficult to comprehend that God, and or Christ (depending on your perspective) would do such a thing...and would not wish to refuse employment in his church, in the proffessions you indicate, because they were women or homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 12:51 PM

The Roman Catholic Church - nigh on 2000 years of oppression, mind-fuck, wholesale massacre, fascist collusion, inquisition, torture & terror that makes The Third Reich look like choir boys (members of the Third Reich look on nervously) and still actively promoting superstition, lies and ignorance to this day! Some nice architecture though, and music, and liturgy, and gew-gaws, but worrying to think people still take it seriously & that such a mind-numbing travesty of spirituality has a place in the modern world.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:32 PM

I don't doubt what you say, Sweeney, and I know there have been cases of abuse in the UK but I was meaning the kind of set-up we have seen exposed in Ireland where the whole system seems to have been involved. They are more likely to get caught and punished here because the whole system isn't infested with self-protecting Catholicism. That's what I meant by 'scandal', not the abuse itself.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:51 PM

Well there was THIS, Smokey. God alone knows the full extent of the abuse & the cover ups, but given the odious foundations of the Roman Catholic church it's hardly surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:24 PM

Good grief.. Thanks, Sweeney.

It doesn't bode well for places where they can really get away with it, like India or Africa. An acquaintance of mine went to India in the 90s as a volunteer helping Mother Theresa's set-up. After a few weeks she came back, utterly disgusted and about as uncatholic as it's possible to be. No specific report of sexual abuse, just general abuse of children somewhat contrary to what was being told to the world.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 07:52 PM

Hmmm. The 10-yr-old article Suibhne O'Piobaireachd cites says the priest in question had a computer capable of holding the Encyclopedia Britannica 11 times over. I have a computer capable of holding 231 copies of the encyclopedia - I wonder if I'm suspect. When it comes to analysis of the actions of churches, it's very difficult to find factual information - almost everything you find (including Mudcat threads) has a "spin" on it.

Suibhne O'Piobaireachd, can you really say "oppression, mind-fuck, wholesale massacre, fascist collusion, inquisition, torture & terror" and claim not to be at least a little bit biased?

Jesus H. Christ!!!

---

An the other hand, I have to agree with Smokey that there are at least some questions about Mother Theresa. The general rule for Catholic missionaries is to serve the people, and not to talk religion unless people come asking. I've seen implications that Mother Theresa seems to have overstepped that boundary quite often, although I do not have concrete information.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:44 PM

Joe - all British newspapers are full of statistical tripe like that which you highlighted - we (at least some of us) learn to ignore it. We only have the one reliable unbiased newspaper and that is the Financial Times, which is far too boring for most people.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:32 PM

Last year, a Canadian Catholic Bishop was charged by the Canadian Mounties (RCMP) with importing child pornography into Canaada on his laptop computer. This same bishop had negotiated settlements for the Church for decades of priest sexual abuse, which the parishoners are to pay...and yes, he offered an appology on behalf of the RC church.

http://www.canada.com/news/Nova+Scotia+Catholics+shocked+child+pornography+charges+against+bishop/2056067/story.html


The investigation comes following comments by some men — who as youth were abused by Christian Brothers in St. John's Mount Cashel orphanage decades ago — who say they told police they saw child pornography in the home of this bishop in the 1980s.
He has yet to be tried of the charges.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/10/02/nl-earle-lahey-102.html

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:37 PM

Last paragraph in my last post should heve said "An investigation following .....

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:49 AM

When it comes to analysis of the actions of churches, it's very difficult to find factual information - almost everything you find (including Mudcat threads) has a "spin" on it.

Look at the facts of the case - as I had to, living as I was in Durham at the time with close friends who were members of McLeish's congregation, and the impact those facts had on their lives & faiths whether their children (who he had contact with) were actual victims or not. See HERE for more.

can you really say "oppression, mind-fuck, wholesale massacre, fascist collusion, inquisition, torture & terror" and claim not to be at least a little bit biased?

Hardly biased, Joe - my wife is a practising Roman Catholic from a Roman Catholic family; she also has a theology degree & a canny understanding of the bloody history of her church, as have I, largely through my interest in Gnosticism - especially the barbaric persecution of the Cathar Heresy. The collusion of the Vatican with the Nazi party is well known; their silence regarding the Holocaust remains deafening to this day. All this, and more, is historical fact. Roman Catholicism religion founded on an increasingly bizarre & warped theology that operates at several removes from the teachings and example of the man they claim to worship, let alone the scriptures on which they base their beliefs. If Christ threw the money lenders out of the temple, just imagine his reaction to the Vatican and the RC church in general, with its institutionalised paedophilia and the elevation of an evil old bitch like Mother Theresa to near sainthood. To this day the abortion and contraception laws in Catholic countries are founded on an inhumane oppression on the most fundamental level, and the theology of the church represents a mediaeval ignorance altogether at odds with human enlightenment - hence the OP of this thread.

The historical facts are there, plain as day. So what are you, Joe - Devil's Advocate or Papal Apologist? And is there really any difference between the two?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:51 AM

Smokey....I'm sorry to say this, as I enjoy your sense of humour on mudcat and your laid back style; but it seems to me that although you profess neutrality and lack of bias, when we see you amongst the real anti-religion nutters you seem to revel in "stoking them up".

The fact is that religion or some sort of spirituality is a requirement for many many people.
What "right"have the twisted minority to attempt to deprive them of it?   are they bigots? religiphobes? or just fuckin' hypocrites!

On Mudcat???.....perish the thought!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 07:33 AM

The fact is that religion or some sort of spirituality is a requirement for many many people.

Even as a humanist & an atheist I am not entirely anti-religion. I agree with what you say - quoted above - however, it is all so very subjective and religion and religious leaders should never intrude on the rights of individuals to live how they choose and believe what they want just as long as that belief doesn't interfere with another's rights to do likewise.

The bottom line with religion is they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. That they are all wrong is pretty evident, but the human dimension of spirituality is, as you say, very important. I know a lot of very sincere and very devout Roman Catholics, just as I know a lot of very devout and sincere Moslems etc. But when it comes to the wholesale massacre of others as heretics & infidels, likewise the active oppression of individuals because of some warped theology derived from the ravings of a mad horse, then I would suggest there is something seriously awry with the old religion concept.

There is no truth that is not common to all.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 08:49 AM

Yes...and I agree with some of what you say Suibhne, but the root of the problem lies in the fact that "religion" has been used as a political card in many places, and so has not evolved as I think you and I would have liked it to do (I too am an atheist)

In Scotland and Ireland, one's religion is widely used to define one's political beliefs....I fear that is also starting to happen in the US.

Here on mudcat, the anti-religion lobby are using the archaic parts and contradictions of old style christianity to bolster a political ideology just as dogmatic and unreasoning.
The fascism of the "liberal" left.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 10:43 AM

The thread title suggests the pope is talking sense....
Some suggest that the pope has a right talk about what he wants, or his own interests.
Some say that most RCs dont pay much attention to the popes public statements anyway...and they do not represent those of the RC church, or the faithful.
Some say that they are loyal RCs have faith in the church, but that they ignore pope statements that are inconvenient to their lifestyle or are not a requirement of the RC church or Vatican teachings ...yet they accept the pope is Christ's (aka Gods) only representative on Earth.

Some say that since the pope (with human frailities) is God's representative, guided by Christ's (aka the holy ghost or spirit) that he is infallible on some matters....except on matters that the church faithful do not as a group like and deem that he is not infallible on (note that just how he is infallible changes through time, and is not fixed, as other matters, such as his interpretation natural law, may be).

Some say that they support women and gay rights in society, but not inside thr RC church. Some say that you have to take a modern view of the RC church, but accept that a good part of the theology is fixed in time.


Well I could go on and on....but I won't.

I once heard that you can't have it both ways....but the RC church and its faithful seem to prove this wrong.

I am a Christian. I respect anyone of faith and applaud their conviction and beliefs...though I may not share them.

RCs often complain that anyone that challenges their beliefs are anti RC or anti Christian...even to those who are just as faithful to what they see as Christ's (aks God's ) messages to humans.

Well...noone is going to challenge your faith or beliefs if you keep them to yourself. But, when you, or your church's representative (aka Christs only representative on Earth) go around agressively preaching your perspective to others....as if it is the only way, and expect immunity from societies laws or governments...expect others to challenge you. And, expect others to bring to light your internal weaknesses and contridictions.

If you want a recent non religeon example of that....look at Tiger woods.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 11:15 AM

"In Scotland and Ireland, one's religion is widely used to define one's political beliefs....I fear that is also starting to happen in the US."

I don't think that statement would stand up to any real kind of scrutiny as far as Scotland is concerned. Certainly not in the Scotland of the second half of the 20thC and 21stC. Yes Labour used to get a fair percentage of the Catholic vote but that probably had as mush to do with where much of that population was located as it had to do with actual religion. Catholics don't really vote on block on a religious basis and Protestants (who make up the vast bulk of the population) certainly don't.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:01 PM

Joe Offer said a few days ago:

"Here in California, the Catholic Church has gotten a fair amount of flak for its stance on immigration, and some for its opposition to the death penalty. I'd certainly be appalled if anything were done to curtail its right to speak out on such issues."

I see your point Joe, but this bothers me in the same way the recent Supreme Court decision on the extension of the 2nd amendment to corporations did.

   To my mind, institutions do not HAVE opinions...ever! I do understand that churches...especially the Catholic church... do have a system where leaders define and promulgate 'official positions' on various issues, but in the final analysis, it IS those leaders who 'have opinions'. All that varies is the degree to which various churches suggest that their official stance is supported by scripture and how closely members are expected to toe the line.

   You, Joe, mention often that you do NOT accept some of the more extreme teachings of Rome on certain matters, and that seems to me to be progress(though YOU would be considered bordering on heretical in more conservative countries).....but then you want to allow "the church" to have freedom to "speak out" on things like immigration?

I strongly feel that any opinion on public matters should be stated AS the opinion of the individual, and not some institution- religious or corporate - he happens to represent in other capacities.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:38 PM

can you really say "oppression, mind-fuck, wholesale massacre, fascist collusion, inquisition, torture & terror" and claim not to be at least a little bit biased?

Hardly biased, Joe - my wife is a practising Roman Catholic from a Roman Catholic family;

So you think your wife is being oppressed and mind-fucked? Or just that she's collusion with those who do? I'm trying to figure how you believe what you believe about the RCC and yet reconcile being married to one.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:50 PM

When the pope speaks out on issues and religion it is just his faith and opinion.

When the RCs speak on issues and religion it is their faith and opinion.

When those who question the public stated faith, or opinions of the pope, the RC church, or the faithful (or less so) RC members...mostly respectful, then they are Christian bashers or biased.

Give mea break. It may be best to break all the house mirrors, or a glimpse of thy self may come forward:)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: pdq
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:00 PM

...this bothers me in the same way the recent Supreme Court decision on the extension of the 2nd amendment to corporations did. ~ Bill D

That is a classic Bill D pontification.

Priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:13 PM

What occured in Canada could happen in the UK:


In -JUL-2005 A Canadain RC Member of Parliament Charles Angus, voted for a Canadian bill allowing same sex marrages. He was denied communion by Father John Lemire, pastor of St. Patrick's parish in Ontario.

Angus told an Ottawa radio station: "I feel that we are starting to move into some very uncomfortable waters when the priest is telling me how to vote in the House of Commons....I felt no matter what else was at stake I can't allow the Eucharist to be a political pressure point." Angus can attend services but cannot receive communion unless he first repents of his decision to vote for C-38. Father Lemire said: "it is a consistent teaching of the Catholic Church as voiced by the current Pope and his predecessor."

Wherre could this action come from? Possibly below:

The Roman Curia's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"document NOV-24, 2004, "Doctrinal Note on participation of Catholics in political life."
The main thrust of the document is to inform individual Roman Catholics including legislators, that they are not free to vote for parties or laws which deviate from the Church's teachings.

Some points raised in this note are:
An atmosphere of cultural relativism exists in many democratic countries. But the concept of pluralism which accepts all systems of morality as equally valid must be rejected. Only the moral and ethical systems taught by the church are correct. That is because the Church's "...ethical precepts are rooted in human nature itself and belong to the natural moral law."

..citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value."

Roman Catholic citizens, including legislators, are only free to "choose among the various political opinions that are compatible" with the church's faith and natural moral law. They are not free to develop an opinion which is based on secular beliefs or on another religion's teachings, if the conflict with Catholic principles.

"Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society."

The church "has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them." Laws must protect "the basic right to life from conception to natural death."

"...a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" as taught by the Catholic church. "

The principle of separation of church and state does not apply in matters of morality: "For Catholic moral doctrine, the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church – but not from that of morality -- is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to inheritance of contemporary civilization."


Lawmakers cannot create a wall of separation between their religious life and their political life. They cannot behave as Catholics part of the time, and as secularists for the rest of the time. "There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called 'spiritual life', with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called 'secular' life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture."

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:17 PM

"When the pope speaks out on issues and religion it is just his faith and opinion."

Yes, technically, it is. I understand that..(I understand ex cathedra also...wrote a paper on the 2nd Vatican Council in college), but over & over on various issues, various church leader do not bother to clarify that, and many of their followers rely on their opinions as if they were official pronouncements. (And I seldom see those leaders disavowing the idea.)

"When those who question ....then they are Christian bashers or biased."

Yep...biased....I am biased in favor of clarity and reason and honest disclosure. Way too many about who I am biased do not understand their own subjective biases. Here, in these discussions, we get many who DO, and it is easier to at least compare notes with them, whether we agree or not. When I lived in the Bible Belt, I was around far too many who were nothing but sheep about beliefs & issues...but aggressive, dangerous sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:22 PM

"That is a classic Bill D pontification.


Why thank you! It's good to have my ideas recognized as having regular and unambiguous themes....

Now, what did you think of my opinion and concern? ☺

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: pdq
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:55 PM

Methinks someone has confused the "right to bear arms" with the right to Bear Stearns.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:37 PM

Nice one pdq!

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM

?? Color me confused. I have no idea if that was in response to me, and if so, what it has to do with the topic.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:10 PM

Look, I am really troubled by the way that some folks here keep on attacking others for having religious beliefs. There is just too much bile here against Muslims and Christians, and I hate it.

The Pope (as a head of religious institution and a regular agitator in worldly affairs) = fair game for being slapped down.

"The Church" (Whatever church, when it speaks or acts as a body to preach iniquity in secular life) = fair game.

Osama bin Laden / Al Qaeda / Nutty Imams / Saudi Arabia = fair game. The greatness weakness and greatness strength of Islam is that there is no structure, no governance, no "official" to blame for the good or the bad that Muslims do. You have no choice but to learn to differentiate the good from the bad on an individual basis.

Anyone (who takes a religion of peace, love and mercy - such as Judaism, Islam, Christianity and twists it to support iniquity and harm in secular life) = fair game.

But for crying out loud, the shit and approbrium that gets heaped upon some folks here for having an external justification or reason for caring, thinking, speaking well, praying and generally aspiring to something better for themselves and for all others, is just appalling. Some of you need to take a cold shower, a few deep breaths and try to calm down.

Suibhne: "I know a lot of very sincere and very devout Roman Catholics, just as I know a lot of very devout and sincere Moslems etc. But when it comes to the wholesale massacre of others as heretics & infidels, likewise the active oppression of individuals because of some warped theology derived from the ravings of a mad horse, then I would suggest there is something seriously awry with the old religion concept."

Well said. My next comment is not directed at you, it is directed "out there" generally: Protest at the pronouncements and at the people who act and speak in disagreeable ways, be sure to respect and acknowledge those who act, speak and intend nothing but good; and learn to tell the difference between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 06:51 PM

" caring, thinking, speaking well, praying and generally aspiring to something better for themselves and for all others"

I agree if the emphasis is on "all others".

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 07:35 PM

Smokey....I'm sorry to say this, as I enjoy your sense of humour on mudcat and your laid back style; but it seems to me that although you profess neutrality and lack of bias, when we see you amongst the real anti-religion nutters you seem to revel in "stoking them up". (Akenaton)

Ake, I don't know where you've drawn these conclusions from, and I've no idea where I've professed neutrality, lack of bias or indeed 'stoked up' anti-religious nutters. Although I have no religious beliefs, sometimes I find myself agreeing with some of what is said against religion but I find some of it unreasonable too, and I would say exactly the same about contributions from supporters of religion. It's not a 'black and white' issue. I feel just the same way about politics. I can assure you though, that there is very little in this world that I'm neutral or not biased about one way or another. By the way, some of the equality/antidiscrimination laws were brought in by Thatcher's government if my memory serves me correctly. The lesson being: Never take what any government does at face value.

I apologise for interrupting the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 09:35 AM

Amazing how a few posts have crept in saying that those who "hate" religion are posting and should be ignored. A post saying that if you are religious you are fair game, and apparently that is wrong?

Excuse me.

I am not religious, I feel exceedingly frustrated that by pointing out that religious cults are self serving, as demonstrated throughout history, that for some reason, I appear to be in the wrong here.

I for one accept that debate could be had as to how to live, how to set your moral compass and how should society progress. But to say, (as this thread is asking us to debate) that the head of a cult based in Italy has the right to interfere in UK politics is not helpful at all.

Just remember, yes you may have your God, and you may have your weird rules, and yes, you can kid yourself that your rules should be followed by the likes of me. But jus don't forget;

We vote for our leaders in Government. They are the highest authority there is, even when they pretend to be religious. They have to pretend from time to time in order to get your vote too.

Doesn't mean there are fairies at the bottom of the garden though. If there were, they would be busy being buggered by priests.

Sorry to start ranting here but some people think religions cannot be criticised. Yes they can. And for one overriding reason;

They all seek to interfere in the lives of the rest of us, and that makes them fair game for pointing and laughing, or crying sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 12:40 PM

Willie, I'm not sure I understood your post. Particularly the first paragraph. Was it in any way a reply to mine, about the bile that seems to heaped on individuals who have religious beliefs?

I think, if you read mine again, you will see that we are in agreement. I explicity stated that organised religions - as bodies - and their leaders, to the extent that they pronounce on secular life in ways that might be regarded as harmful, are most certainly fair game for slapping down.

My problem is with the sort of personal attacks that are launched on some people here, or the way those people are somehow held accountable for the actions of others claiming membership of the same faith. The people of faith that I see posting here seem to harbour some of the least socially corrosive and indeed some of the more progressive sets of views that emerge on these pages.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 03:18 PM

What you mean is, "people of faith" are acceptable as long as their views coincide with yours.

I happen to think your views are "socially corrosive" and not at all progressive.

Some people are perfectly happy to have a set of rules to live their lives by and many would rather have those rules determined by a theologian than a politician.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:06 PM

"Some people are perfectly happy to have a set of rules to live their lives by and many would rather have those rules determined by a theologian than a politician."

Fine...that is called "freedom of religion": the disagreement comes when they wish to have that theological set of rules inserted into political issues and affect the lives of those who don't see things that way.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:13 PM

A quyote from one of the founders of Christianity in Britain ( 6th century) :

"Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men."
Saint Augustine

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:16 PM

*grin*...did Augustine say who should go fetch some from segregation when we need to increase the population?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:24 PM

Oh well, a couple of other quotes:

"I am more afraid of an army of 100 sheep led by a lion than an army of 100 lions led by a sheep"
— Talleyrand

It's hard to lead a cavalry charge if you think you look funny on a horse
— Adlai Stevenson

We may pretend we are basically moral people who make mistakes, but the whole of history proves otherwise.
— Terry Hands,

There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.
— Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:47 PM

Well Bill in the case of homosexual marriage, I would say it was the other way round and that the politicians were "inserting" their rules into Christian faith.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:51 PM

No matter what group of people you are talking about, presuming it is neither tiny nor newly born, it is relatively easy to find a quote by some current or dead member that shows the group, or at least the member, in a bad light. When this is done to try to discredit the group, it is an example of Hasty Generalization.

Not saying anybody here would do that.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 05:05 PM

"in the case of homosexual marriage, I would say it was the other way round and that the politicians were "inserting" their rules into Christian faith"

So what about the rights in society of all those who do not share the anti-homosexual marriage view....Christian or otherwise?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 05:08 PM

"it is relatively easy to find a quote by some current or dead member that shows the group, or at least the member, in a bad light"

Before oneclaims the moral highground, it's often humbling to reflect its roots.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 05:38 PM

ED....they can get all the legal protection and "rights" through civil union.

But to be "equal" it must be "the M word"

Unfortunately for the activists, Christian marriage is the preserve of the church.
Any change must be made by politicians redefining Christian marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:09 PM

No matter what group of people you are talking about, presuming it is neither tiny nor newly born, it is relatively easy to find a quote by some current or dead member that shows the group, or at least the member, in a bad light. When this is done to try to discredit the group, it is an example of Hasty Generalization.

I completely agree with that, but it's worth noting that exactly the same principal applies when the same is done or implied in order to show the group in a good light too.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:26 PM

Fair enough. Although I think if it's the founder of the group it pulls more weight. (Unless it's after they were kicked out, if they were.)

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:34 PM

Although I think if it's the founder of the group it pulls more weight.

There are groups, and there are groups..

But let's not mention the war :-)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 08:06 PM

akenaton

I suspect the history of marriage trancends christianity....though I have never researched it.

But, as to governments recognizing marriage as a civil institution, there are already christian churches who practice and condone Christian marriage in different countries in the world. Some countries have changed their civil laws to recognize these marriages....and also non Christian marriages Does it not seem logical for civil authorities to make this civil change within a reasonable democratic society.   I suspect that in all these countries, no church is forced to conduct a gay marriage, regardless of the belief...RC, other catholic or other Christian. varieties. I recognize there are different views within Christian churches....but it seems odd to deny a right to have a loving and committed marriage recognized in society. We are not talking about the permiscious gay steriotype, oft put forward by those seeking to make an anti gay point (and I suggest against christian tolerence and respect requested by Christ and even the RC church) as the standard.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 08:12 PM

I suspect the history of marriage trancends christianity....though I have never researched it.

It does in fact. Both the Greeks and the Romans had marriage, for instance. If I remember correctly, the early Christians just got married at the Roman equivalent of the justice of the peace, and there was no such thing as "Christian marriage" at all. That came along later when the church got sucked up into the state.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 08:25 PM

Ed T and mousethief have it right.

It is perfectly possible for NON-gay couples to get legally married with absolutely no church involved! Buy a license and get a justice of the peace to read the details!

You are showing an amazing amount of not only bias, but also a sheltered life, to not see that 'marriage' is only a general idea, and "Christian" marriage is one specific form. If people want their church involved...fine.. more power to 'em! It's what feels right to THEM.

It's way past time that some folks got over the idea that their cultural group or religion owns the rights to the WORD.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 08:56 PM

This is a good read, and also indicates a pre-Christian acceptance of homosexuality:

HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 11:30 PM

I would like to see marriage divided into two categories: state and religious. The state category would have entirely to do with the legal aspects: inheritance, rights pertaining to next-of-kin, parenting rights, etc. etc. etc. The religious category would be for whatever any given religious group would like to have it mean. So if you belonged to a religious group that cared about such things you'd get married twice: once at the justice of the peace, and then again at your church or synagogue or Quonset Hut or whatever.

That way the state can do whatever it likes to marriage laws (e.g. making it legal for gays to wed) and the churches won't (or shouldn't) feel threatened because it's not saying anything at all about marriage-in-God's-eyes (or however they phrase it), only about an explicitly non-religious legal partnership arrangement.

That's my grand idea. It has a snowball's.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 02:29 AM

The article Smokey linked to looks quite accurate. The Christian Church had opinions on marriage from the very beginnings, but there really wasn't such a thing as a "church wedding" until about the 11th century; and wedding regulations weren't standardized in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent's decree in the 1560s.

I see comments down here about infallibility and about the Catholic Church misleading people into thinking statements were infallible. We talked quite a bit about infallibility toward the top of the thread, and several posts explained quite thoroughly how limited this doctrine is. I thought I gave a particularly profound explanation of the issue here - the main point is that there have only been two or three infallible statements since the doctrine of infallibility was promulgated in the 1870s - and I question the one about ordination of women, since it didn't really follow the regulations. Yes, there is much misunderstanding about the doctrine, and the assumption has arisen that "the Pope is infallible" which is grossly inaccurate. But the Catholic Church doesn't really hide behind these misconceptions - it's just that most people don't bother to study the issue.

SO'B wondered if I were a Papal Apologist. Well....about all I can say about him is that he hasn't been as bad as I feared he would be. But that ain't sayin' much. Nonetheless, I do believe the man has a right to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church, not that I'll always agree with him. But rather than arguing about his right to speak, I think it is proper to argue for or against his positions.

The Catholic Church is not as monolithic as it may seem from the outside, and there is room for a wide variety of opinion with the Church - not that the Popes always like that diversity. But Catholic teaching does not require uniformity on most issues, despite the simplistic teaching you'll hear from the conservatives (and unfortunately, the conservatives have a monopoly on Catholic broadcasting in the US). You'll find a more realistic view of the diversity of Catholic thinking on the campuses of most established Catholic universities (not the newer neoconservative ones, but established ones like Notre Dame and Fordham and Georgetown), and in the established Catholic religious orders. The debate within the Catholic Church is lively and diverse, whether the Pope likes it or not.

This bit about the Pope being the be-all and end-all of everything in the Catholic Church, is a misconception. A "cult of the Pope" has arisen in the last 150 years, but you won't find most of the beliefs of the papal absolutists in official Catholic teaching. For most Catholics, the Pope is a guy in faraway Rome who is mostly irrelevant. For Romans, the Pope is completely irrelevant - and the Pope knows it.

The management of the Catholic Church conducted itself shamefully in the child molestation scandal, and all Catholics know it - and even the Pope acknowledges it.

Despite the widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the Catholic Church, many priests and nuns and Catholic lay people have a far more compassionate view of homosexuality, and many have devoted their lives to AIDS/HIV ministry. Most nuns I know have a very favorable view of homosexual marriage - so do I.

So, it ain't all bad - and the Pope (surprisingly) seems to realize that there is a lot of room for discussion. This Pope likes discussion - the previous one didn't.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 04:43 AM

The only infallibility around here that worries me is that of Pope Joe for which I hope he accepts my petition to go blow it out of his holy self-righteous ass.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:01 AM

mousethief,

I suspect your wish is what is mostly in place in many countries.

In many of the countries, where gay marriage is permitted by civil law, it is like you state. Government recognizes both type of marriage, those within a church (christian or otherwise) and those outside. And, as stated earlier, a few christian churches have no issue with performing gay marriages (but, not the RC church....which is its choice).

Most issues relate to those inside some christian churches opposing the state recognition to gay marriages...and the use of the word marriag, which they claim (incorrectly) that the word belongs to christians (but, not to those who perform christian gay marriages, of course. Those that condone gay marriage push for the "word civil" union for gay marriage. This, of course, lessens the full meaning of the institution to gay couples.

I am not aware of any government, where gay marriage is legal, who is dictating the conditions of to traditional christian church marriages. However,limits do exist in some countries on the terms of gay marriage. And, some christian churches, in some countries, have intervened in attempts to stop civil legislation to allow gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:56 PM

Suibhne O'Piobaireachd.... your post about Joe Offer strains my resolve not to get into name calling myself! Can't bother to deal with the details of well thought out opinions, huh? Just make nasty remarks instead!
   I don't always agree with the fine points of everything Joe says, (as I note below), but he cares, tries and is decent...and I'd rather 'discuss' with him than listen to your one-sided bloviations, even if I agreed with you. If you can't talk without insults, why should anyone listen?


So, Joe...*grin*...you said:

"But Catholic teaching does not require uniformity on most issues, despite the simplistic teaching you'll hear from the conservatives."

Somewhere above, I said "... various church leaders do not bother to clarify that, and many of their followers rely on their opinions as if they were official pronouncements. (And I seldom see those leaders disavowing the idea.)

   These are the 'conservatives' you refer to, and these days they are active in many religions. It seems to me that Catholics, just like other groups, don't go out of their way to remind their parishioners that "uniformity is not required". It is MUCH easier to conduct things when you don't get alternate opinions from below.
It seems to me that those who have a need for religious structure in their lives, but who reject authoritative hierarchies, are the ones who end up in Humanist or Unitarian groups...or splitting off from some main group to form their own sect...which then becomes 'authoritative' about its own small details. (Emo Phillips joke routine about Lutheran synods comes to mind)

(note... I am just brainstorming here. This is a really knotty subject, and obviously, there are no easy ways to decide what makes the most sense...on either side.)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 03:33 PM

Can't bother to deal with the details of well thought out opinions, huh?

Sorry to have upset you, Bill D - just giving appropriate response to the pompous pontificating on the part of our esteemed pontiff.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 03:49 PM

Well, Sweeney, regret I must agree with Bill that I thought it an unnecessarily unmannerly and provocative response ~ "appropriate" is the very last adjective I should apply to it.

Similarly, I admire the alliterative effectiveness of your last post, but deplore its sentiments.

Regards ~ M

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 03:56 PM

Here's the passage to which I was responding:

SO'B wondered if I were a Papal Apologist. Well....about all I can say about him is that he hasn't been as bad as I feared he would be. But that ain't sayin' much. Nonetheless, I do believe the man has a right to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church, not that I'll always agree with him. But rather than arguing about his right to speak, I think it is proper to argue for or against his positions.

In the light of which, I think my response is more than considerate.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 04:44 PM

That was a moderate, thoughtful passage! It shows both respect for the Pope's position in Joe's church, without obsequious agreement with all the Pope's opinions.

"...more than considerate." I don't think I want to know how you respond to things you REALLY dislike....

You sure have a different standard of 'consideration' than I recognize.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 06:11 PM

I'll second that, Bill.

Any man as reasonable, patient and civilised about his beliefs as Joe is deserves the same respect in return. I may be a heretic, probably an irritating one, but manners is manners, aint they?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:06 PM

So, back to the pope making (talking) sense:

OK Joe....(with alll respect to your, my faith, and that of other mudcatters, as this is debate, and not personal) ...since you seem to have taken on a role as an authority on the RC church....a couple of puzzling questions.

My understanding is the one RC pope is the boss of the 3000 or so world RC bishops in th e 220,000, or so, global RC parishes ( I believe there are between 30-410 Roman Catholic denominations, depending on how you count 'em up).

The Bishops are the spirital advisors of the local churches and bosses of the priests. ( let's set aside th e cardinals who mostly have a role to advise and elect the pope).

Since it has been proven that some (and I suspect a lot of) priests broke RC church (and Christ's) laws through pedophile ( or related) acts....how many non-moral priests and their bishop bosses, some of whom it is known had knowledge of and condoned their acts, have been relieved of their clerical duties and excommunicated from the RC Church?
If non or few, Why so?

Such imoral priests would be incapable of fulfilling the moral requirement for consecrating the Holy Eucharist. A non moral priest's inability to consecrate the Eucharist would invalidate all mass offerings in their parish, over a number of years.   A result would be that Jesus did not become spiritually present in the local RC neighborhoods to discourage the presence and influence of Satan among the RC populace.

Would such deception and consequences, lasting over many years or decades, not be considered a serious situation for the RC Church, it's organization and the faithful? If so, who was punished, and who lost their job...from the non-moral priest, up top the Pope, through the Bishops? If this and previous Popes were ultimate bosses....where was the action (or, maybe I missed it) to address this important matter? I note that swift action was recently taken to put a halt to initiatives in a RC church enabling women to take a greater role within the RC Mass (we discussed this last year in another thread)

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 09:19 PM

Hi, Ed. T. I guess I could call myself a reasonable "authority" on the Catholic Church. I attended a Catholic seminary for eight years, and completed a B.A. in Theology there in 1970, and I've worked in the Catholic Church as a (mostly volunteer, occasionally employed) teacher of religion almost continuously since about 1977. And I read constantly and attend a lot of seminars. So yeah, my perspective is fairly valid. I probably study the issues more thoroughly than most priests and nuns, and many ask my advice on church issues. And I'm in a one-year program preparing me to become an associate member of the Sisters of Mercy (so maybe Spaw should be calling me SISTER JoeBro).

---

Although the structure of the Catholic Church is called "THE hierarchy," it is not purely hierarchical. The governing principle is supposed to be collegiality - although that principle is honored more in theory than in practice. So, the Pope is supposed to be "first among equals" (primus inter pares), and each bishop is supposed to be the supreme authority in his own diocese. Bishops are rarely overruled by Rome, and that (I think) is as it should be. Same goes for the pastors of parishes - they are rarely overruled by their bishops. And pastors are supposed to collaborate with their paid staff and congregations.

---

Ed asks:

Since it has been proven that some (and I suspect a lot of) priests broke RC church (and Christ's) laws through pedophile ( or related) acts....how many non-moral priests and their bishop bosses, some of whom it is known had knowledge of and condoned their acts, have been relieved of their clerical duties and excommunicated from the RC Church?
If non or few, Why so?

After a long and painful struggle in the United States, I think I can report that almost almost all priests guilty of child molestation, have at last been removed from ministry. In my Sacramento diocese, most of the offenders were removed many years ago, as soon as complaints were found to be credible. A good number of bishops did not face the problem, and sometimes let child molester priests remain in ministry for decades. But since the scandal came to a head in the last ten years, strict controls were adopted by all U.S. bishops but one - the infamous Fabian Bruskiewicz of Lincoln, Nebraska.

There's still a big question: why was this child molestation covered up or ignored in so many dioceses in the U.S.? I haven't seen a satisfactory answer to that question. Some bishops lost their jobs as a result of this scandal - but probably a good number more deserve to lose their jobs. They still have a lot of questions to answer.

The Catholic Church in Ireland is just barely beginning to deal with its child abuse and molestation scandal, which appears to have been far worse than anywhere else in the world - four successive Archbishops of Dublin were able to prevail upon the Irish Government to stop any investigation. The price of that arrogance will be very high.

I don't know much about child abuse in other places - I know there were priests and a bishop or two in Africa who took sexual advantage of nuns, and I've heard of a number of cases of child molestation in England and scattered cases on the European continent.

---

Thinking about SO'B's question about whether I was a papal apologist, maybe I can explain it this way: if popes were American Presidents, my ideal Pope (John XXIII) would be Barack Obama, or maybe Harry Truman. John Paul II would be Ronald Reagan, and the current Pope Benedict XVI would be George H.W. Bush. We've have to go back to Pius IX and Pius X to find popes as bad as George W. Bush.

Maybe SO'B thought I was talking about HIM (SO'B) when I said all I can say about him is that he hasn't been as bad as I feared he would be - I was talking about Benedict XVI. And George H.W. Bush wasn't as bad as most Presidents the U.S. has had in my lifetime.

---

Bill D questions this statement of mine: "But Catholic teaching does not require uniformity on most issues, despite the simplistic teaching you'll hear from the conservatives."
Bill says various church leaders do not bother to clarify that, and many of their followers rely on their opinions as if they were official pronouncements. (And I seldom see those leaders disavowing the idea.)
Well.....most official statements from the Catholic Church are published in very balanced, diplomatic language. They're usually quite rational and balanced - but very few people bother to read them. Even priests and nuns don't take the time (and I'm sure many bishops sign off on things without reading them). I do read a fair amount, since I'm pretty conscientious about not teaching what I don't know. So, carefully worded documents get reduced to sound bites, and conservative Catholics (who control the U.S. Catholic media with brewery and Domino's Pizza money) mold the sound bites to fit their agenda. Mother Angelica's EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) is very popular with Catholic lay people, but not so popular with many priests and nuns. As for myself, I detest EWTN.

Most of the extreme stuff doesn't get spoken from the pulpit. My pastor comes unglued when our conservative deacon talks about "sodomists" (homosexuals) from the pulpit, and the deacon has learned not to do that any more. Yes, there are rigid right-wing parishes when abortion and homosexuals seem to be the only topics of discussion, but parishes like that are generally in the minority.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:26 PM

Thanks, Joe...that clarifies a few things.......but......

(You knew that with me, there'd be a 'but'...*smile*)

IF the conservatives who distort the message with sound bytes are so sneaky, why don't those who issue those 'official statements' RE-issue strongly worded statements RE-clarifying what they really mean? Why bother to make an official statement and then ALLOW media distortion?
   ...so, you see, we are back to my earlier remark about 'various church leaders not bothering to clarify things or disavow misleading ideas.'

I guess it boils down to: Who's in charge here and why don't they BE in charge?

It makes me appreciate the Quaker...or Amish... way of doing things.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:39 PM

Why bother to make an official statement and then ALLOW media distortion?

Maximum publicity for a minimum outlay?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:03 AM

Well, Bill, the conservatives have a different mindset and speak a different language. I've tried to answer them in classes; and I find that when I use their language, I dig myself into a hole. They see religious faith as some sort of quasi-judicial process - I see it as broad concepts that are a source of joy and hope, and a call to serve the needy. The official documents published by Rome and by the American bishops, often take years to produce. As I said, they're usually quite rational and balanced. Even what they've said about homosexuality and birth control is quite balanced. They produce videos and study guides and all sorts of excellent instructional materials based on their documents - and most people listen to the sound bites.

Several months ago, I did a presentation to my parish of the American bishops' document called "Welcoming the Stranger," about justice for immigrants. It was a wonderfully insightful document, with an excellent video to go with it. I doubt that the video would be shown on the EWTN Catholic TV network, because it might be offensive to the network's conservative donors.

We progressive Catholics tend to spend our money on serving the poor. Conservatives spend their money on broadcasting.

What can I say?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 04:57 AM

Maybe SO'B thought I was talking about HIM (SO'B) when I said all I can say about him is that he hasn't been as bad as I feared he would be - I was talking about Benedict XVI.

I did think that, Joe - in the light of recent exchanges. I hereby apologise & retract my earlier invective. The joys of syntactical ambiguity!

Interesting what you said back there about JPII being less open to discussion than Ratty given that JPII was Ratty's puppet from the off. I know a lot of RCs who acknowledge neither for their increasingly reactionary interpretations of the doctrine.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:00 AM

Thanks for that explanation Joe.

My question came from a genuine puzzlement....as to why the Pope, who has some level of legal and moral responsibility to the RC faith, publically focuses on issues related to women, fears of the impact of homosexual activity outside the church, bringing Anglicans inside the RC church and of course condoms (i.e. condoms and Africa)....and to me (possibly incorrectly) puts the internal issues on a less pressing route. I suspect many others may share this view, right or wrong.


While I accept he has a right to publically express personal opinion on what he sees as church issues, I suspect he has a moral (if not broader) responsibility to take care of and keep hol;y what many RCs see as Gods house.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 12:49 PM

Joe... as you post, I see even more clearly the attitude of the conservatives and how they have co-opted the media to push their agenda.
'Tis truly a problem.....but what I am interested in is why they are allowed to get away with it. I keep asking "who is in charge, and why don't the BE in charge".

from yesterday's post:

"IF the conservatives who distort the message with sound bytes are so sneaky, why don't those who issue those 'official statements' RE-issue strongly worded statements RE-clarifying what they really mean? Why bother to make an official statement and then ALLOW media distortion?
   ...so, you see, we are back to my earlier remark about 'various church leaders not bothering to clarify things or disavow misleading ideas.'"

Now, perhaps it is unfair to ask YOU to explain the mindset of the upper realms of the hierarchy... but you did volunteer as "... a reasonable "authority" on the Catholic Church." ☺
You see my concern? Surely those who have the authority to issue those balanced and reasonable statements would also have the authority to correct mis-interpretations of them! I can't imagine that biased Conservative websites or TV programs are the ONLY outlets for 'official' documents.
   Obviously, just reading comments on Mudcat, we can see some concerns with the perceived attitudes of the Catholic church in general, and I'd think that there would be more effort by progressives to shore up an unfortunate image.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:25 PM

It seems obvious to me that those in authority, on average, are the ones who lean more toward conservatism. Isn't that a natural consequence within any heirarchical structure?



400

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:48 PM

Smokey...I would think that would 'generally' be true, but Joe suggests that those controlling many Catholic media are a special case.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 04:51 PM

Joe mate.....you've got to get your act together, these people will have you for breakfast...on toast!

You believe what your church teaches? That homosexual practice is wrong. That promiscuity is wrong. That Christian marriage should be between a man and a woman......then dont be afraid to say it!

Start to Qualify and the "liberals" will Crucify.

The Pope has no option than to state and uphold the beliefs of his church, and if you are serious about your faith....neither have you.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:39 PM

Ah, Bill, there's the rub: "Who's in charge?" is not a relevant question. In a huge church with com;letely voluntary membership, nobody really is in changes - or at least, the people in charge can't realistically hope to have their wishes obeyed.

And this may be part of the key to the mystery of the sex abuse scandal - those "in charge" had very little power to control it. From the outside, the Catholic Church looks like a rigidly-controlled structure. The myth is that all Catholics follow every dictate of the Pope, who gets his orders from Christ himself. In reality, the Catholic Church is a very loosely-connected union of largely autonomous structures. The bishop may hold the deed to our church, but he wouldn't dare try to tell us how to spend our Sunday collection money. Now, the bishop does audit parish accounts to ensure the money is used honestly, and one of my seminary classmates lost his job last year because of financial discrepancies - but that was because $25,000 was not properly accounted for, not because he didn't use the money as the bishop instructed him to spend it.

Our congregation has its own structure and spirit, which we have molded over the years. I have found that as an individual, I can have an amazing amount of power in the molding of that structure and spirit, if I have patience and know how to play the game. I want a parish that has quality music and intelligent instruction and preaching, a welcoming and generous and gentle spirit, and a feeling of obligation to help the poor and the sick and those in need. Now, it helps that I sing and tell funny stories and wear plaid and talk with a Wisconsin accent - maybe that's why everybody in the parish seems to know me. In my old parish, people thought I ran the place. They'd come up to me and say, "You can talk to the paster - can you get him to do this?"

I got married in 2002 and moved to a very conservative area. The Catholic parish was ruled by a small but strong conservative faction. Icy stares ensured silence in church before and after Mass. The conservatives sent a steady stream of angry complaint letters to the bishop, who felt compelled to follow up on every complaint. Our three-church parish went through forty priests in ten years, until the bishop sent a strong-willed former FBI agent to take over as pastor in 2003. That pastor cleaned things up a lot, and selected a team of progressive-minded volunteers to guide parish activities. In 2005, he hired me as RCIA director (RCIA = Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults = a one-year program instructions preparing for Baptism). And right after he hired me and before I started to work, he got transferred to another location. We were left with two young, foreign-born priests and no pastor for almost a year. During that year, there were two Sundays when we had no priest, so I directed Sunday worship and preached the homily (but no, we couldn't have Mass).

I had worked in parishes for well over twenty years, but this was the first time I had worked in the RCIA program; and I found this was a tough row to hoe without a boss to back me up. Somebody wrote a letter of complaint about my "incorrect" teaching to the bishop, and and a man from the bishop's office came and held a hearing and absolved me of any wrongdoing and we went out and had hamburgers. But the hearing scared our young Polish priest, who wanted to become pastor of his own parish; and he demanded that I change my curriculum (from my own outline to a publisher's program that was actually more progressive than I felt teaching in a conservative parish).

After almost a year with no pastor, the bishop split the parish and assigned a conservative American-born priest to the two smaller churches and a middle-of-the road Irish-born priest to the larger one. I had known the Irish priest for twenty years and I went with him to the larger church. I liked him, but we had some pretty serious disagreements in the 1980s. He coaxed me into resigning, saying that the bishop wanted him to cut staff because of financial pressures; but he kept me on as a volunteer and more-or-less let me continue what I had been doing as a lay minister in the parish. But for two years, he never let me teach in the RCIA program, and got a deer-in-the-headlights look whenever I asked if I could teach a class. The third year, he removed me from the RCIA program completely, and refused to tell me why. I stopped donating to the church and gave my money to the poor instead; and I removed myself from all positions where I had to answer to the pastor - but I kept active in many things and still worked at the church several days a week. This hurt a lot, because there were many things I liked about the pastor, especially his compassion for the sick and bereaved. It was strange, because there was a major issue that divided us; but yet he continued to confide in me about most issues confronting him and the parish. He and I think alike in most things to do with the church, so it really bothered me that he had pushed me aside.

After a year of feuding with the pastor, our youth program director asked me to work as the catechist (religion instructor) in the youth program. My wife told me I should ask the pastor about it, since he hadn't permitted me to teach for three years. So we talked, and the pastor said he had no question about me from a doctrinal standpoint, and he'd be happy to have me teaching religion to high school students. He said he had been put under a lot of pressure about my participation in the RCIA program, and that's why he had removed me. I understood immediately - in a redneck town, you have to choose your battles; and I knew the pastor had a hard time defending himself in a lot of things.

So, the pastor and I are back on completely good terms and I have another teaching position. I have built myself a niche as sort of a parish concierge. I station myself at the back of the church and make sure everyone is welcomed and acknowledged and made comfortable, and I handle any problems that come up. People come to me when they don't feel comfortable going to a priest or deacon or nun, and I see that they're taken care of. And gradually, the parish has built a reputation for having a friendly, generous, welcoming spirit.

And even when I wasn't allowed to teach in most programs in my own parish, I remained leader of a weekly bible study and taught occasionally in other places in the diocese.

So my point in all this is that the Catholic Church is a hotbed of conflicting political factions - but due to the fact that all Catholics have a high degree of autonomy, anyone can build a power base within the Church and accomplish something significant. No one person, not even the Pope, can have all-encompassing power over anything in the Catholic Church - but they can accomplish a lot if they can deal with the amorphous political structure of the Church. Saints like Teresa of Avila and Francis Assisi accomplished marvelous things by holding firm to their ideals, but not without a lot of heartache from the political structure of the Church.

Another thing - take a look at this Associate Press story. You may remember the story of the 9-year-old Brazilian girl who was raped by her stepfather and had an abortion of her twin fetuses. Bishops in Brazil condemned the girl, her family, and the doctors - and at least some of them were excommunicated. Well, the article says that the "Vatican's top bioethics official," Monsignor Renato Fisichella, wrote an article in the Vatican's newspaper, saying that the doctors didn't deserve excommunication because they were saving the girl's life. Fisichella was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to head the 145-member Pontifical Academy for Life. Five members of the academy have demanded Fisichella's resignation because of the statment, but not that the Pope and the other 140 members of the academy haven't joined in that demand. Another thing to note is that the article appeared in the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. This newspaper gives a very ood "insider" view of what's really happening in Vatican politics, and its articles are often very distressing to conservative factions in the Catholic Church.

I would suggest that the Catholic Church is the most volatile political entity in the world. Nobody writes its script, and nobody is in charge.

Now, Bill, I have to admit that I had only a one-semester course in Whitehead's process thought, taught by my Italian-born pastor who had a PhD in Theology. Still, I think I got a pretty good general idea of Whitehead's ideas. I view the Catholic Church through my limited knowledge of Whitehead and Darwin, mixed with a dose of the ideas expressed in The Tipping Point. I see every moment as having the possibility of radical change, and every individual as capable of being the agent of profound change.

If you look at the Catholic Church that way, I think it begins to makes sense. Nobody is really in charge, and there are no straight lines. And it is my firm belief that although many horrible things happen in the Catholic Church, integrity and justice win out in the end. Francis Assisi and Teresa of Avila proved that, and they inspire me to believe that I am (potentially) every bit as powerful as the Pope.

-Joe-

P.S. Ake says: The Pope has no option than to state and uphold the beliefs of his church, and if you are serious about your faith....neither have you. You're partly right, Ake - but perhaps that means I'm more powerful than the Pope, because I'm free to say exactly what I believe. Lay Catholics don't get excommunicated for saying what they believe - but priests and bishops don't have that freedom. I do think that promiscuous sex is wrong - so homosexuals should be encouraged to get married. I can't teach that as a catechist representing the Catholic Church, but I certainly can say it outside of a teaching situation. The Pope can't; although I understand that he may be more sympathetic to the concerns of homosexuals, than people think he is.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:23 PM

Joe: "P.S. Ake says: The Pope has no option than to state and uphold the beliefs of his church, and if you are serious about your faith....neither have you. You're partly right, Ake - but perhaps that means I'm more powerful than the Pope, because I'm free to say exactly what I believe. Lay Catholics don't get excommunicated for saying what they believe - but priests and bishops don't have that freedom. I do think that promiscuous sex is wrong - so homosexuals should be encouraged to get married. I can't teach that as a catechist representing the Catholic Church, but I certainly can say it outside of a teaching situation. The Pope can't; although I understand that he may be more sympathetic to the concerns of homosexuals, than people think he is."

Well said. But some people just can't stand the fact you're not holding prejudiced views against certain minorities.

Ake, the longer you stay here, the more your comfortable stereotypes just keep crumbling away.

When I speak, for instance, I speak in part as a confessed and practicing Muslim, and, in part, as a gay man. So I have no difficulty relating to people of faith over a wide range of issues.

All in all your world view looks quite tired and worn out, as many here keep trying to explain to you more patiently perhaps than I do.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:40 PM

Its your world view that looks tired Royston.....try listening to the people not the politicians

Your arguments on Hiv/ aids testing appear to be in the process of crumbling also....High risk groups will be targeted.

Joe...maybe you should just join your tormentors....if you really believe homosexual practice to be "godly" or homosexual "marriage" to be reconcilable with Catholic doctrine.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:51 PM

Jurisdictional rights and prerogatives of the pope

In virtue of his office as supreme teacher and ruler of the faithful, the chief control of every department of the Church's life belongs to the pope. In this section the rights and duties which thus fall to his lot will be briefly enumerated. It will appear that, in regard to a considerable number of points, not merely the supreme control, but the whole exercise of power is reserved to the Holy See, and is only granted to others by express delegation. This system of reservation is possible, since the pope is the universal source of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it rests with him to determine in what measure he will confer jurisdiction on bishops and other prelates.

(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:

    * it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12);
    * it is his to prescribe and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for example, Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops.
    * The pope alone can establish a university, possessing the status and privileges of a canonically erected Catholic university;
    * to him also belongs the direction of Catholic missions throughout the world; this charge is fulfilled through the Congregation of the Propaganda.
    * It is his to prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to determine the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by Catholics;
    * his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of some minor degree of censure, and lastly
    * he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc.

(2) With the pope's office of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard to the worship of God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus

    * the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized.
    * At the present day the institution and abrogation of festivals which was till a comparatively recent time free to all bishops as regards their own dioceses, is reserved to Rome.
    * The solemn canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every permission for the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise reserved to his decision.
    * He alone gives to anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said.
    * He dispenses the treasury of the Church, and the grant of plenary indulgences is reserved to him. While he has no authority in regard to the substantial rites of the sacraments, and is bound to preserve them as they were given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles, certain powers in their regard belong to him;
    * he can give to simple priests the power to confirm, and to bless the oil of the sick and the oil of catechumens, and
    * he can establish diriment and impedient impediments to matrimony.

(3) The legislative power of the pope carries with it the following rights:

    * he can legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council;
    * if he legislates with the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its deliberations, to confirm its acts.
    * He has full authority to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those established by his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed, and stands in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed;
    * he can dispense individuals from the obligation of all purely ecclesiastical laws, and can grant privileges and exemptions in their regard.
    * In this connection may be mentioned his power to dispense from vows where the greater glory of God renders it desirable. Considerable powers of dispensation are granted to bishops, and, in a restricted measure, also to priests; but there are some vows reserved altogether to the Holy See.

(4) In virtue of his supreme judicial authority

    * causae majores are reserved to him. By this term are signified cases dealing with matters of great moment, or those in which personages of eminent dignity are concerned.
    * His appellate jurisdiction has been discussed in the previous section. It should, however, be noted
    * that the pope has full right, should he see fit, to deal even with causae minores in the first instance, and not merely by reason of an appeal (Trent, Sess. XXIV; cap. 20). In what concerns punishment,
    * he can inflict censures either by judicial sentence or by general laws which operate without need of such sentence.
    * He further reserves certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of heresy come before the Congregation of the Inquisition. A similar reservation covers the cases in which a bishop or a reigning prince is the accused party.

(5) As the supreme governor of the Church the pope has authority over all appointments to its public offices. Thus

    * it is his to nominate to bishoprics, or, where the nomination has been conceded to others, to give confirmation. Further, he alone can translate bishops from one see to another, can accept their resignation, and can, where grave cause exists, sentence to deprivation.
    * He can establish dioceses, and can annul a previously existing arrangement in favour of a new one. Similarly, he alone can erect cathedral and collegiate chapters.
    * He can approve new religious orders, and can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the authority of local ordinaries.
    * Since his office of supreme ruler imposes on him the duty of enforcing the canons, it is requisite that he should be kept informed as to the state of the various dioceses. He may obtain this information by legates or by summoning the bishops to Rome. At the present day this jus relationum is exercised through the triennial visit ad limina required of all bishops. This system was introduced by Sixtus V in 1585 (Constitution, "Rom. Pontifex"), and confirmed by Benedict XIV in 1740 (Constitution, "Quod Sancta") .
    * It is to be further observed that the pope's office of chief ruler of the Church carries with it jure divino the right to free intercourse with the pastors and the faithful. The placitum regium, by which this intercourse was limited and impeded, was therefore an infringement of a sacred right, and as such was solemnly condemned by the Vatican Council (Constitution, "Pastor Aeternus", cap. iii). To the pope likewise belongs the supreme administration of the goods of the Church.
    * He alone can, where there is just cause, alienate any considerable quantity of such property. Thus, e.g., Julius III, at the time of the restoration of religion in England under Queen Mary validated the title of those laymen who had acquired Church lands during the spoliations of the previous reigns.
    * The pope has further the right to impose taxes on the clergy and the faithful for ecclesiastical purposes (cf. Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.).

Though the power of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. "The pope", as Cardinal Hergenröther well says,

    is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges....He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy — to "feed" — and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations ("Cath. Church and Christian State", tr., I, 197).

Source, The new advent
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:10 PM

Ok, Joe... that was a lot of typing, but it opens a whole new image of what the Catholic church is....and how it operates on a daily basis. I suppose my views, as well an many others', were formed by the historical image of a monolithic church 'controlled' by various factions at various times.

(why does the phrase "herding cats" come to mind?)

Obviously, someone like yourself who comprehends the system CAN do 'good works' by working within it and creating paths where some just see forest. I have my concerns about such huge, unwieldy institutions where the callous and conservative have as much freedom to manipulate things selfishly as the reasonable and progressive have to do valuable stuff....but it sure ain't going away soon, so I'm glad that there ARE folks 'inside' who try.....

thanks for the effort

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:16 PM

Could todays USA    Rc's be more involved with a RC family tradition, rather than actively practicing the RC faith?

Could Joe O, in his mosest church position, today be more powerful than the RC Pope? Methinks it may be so?

Just wondering....seems like the pope has been downgraded to being no more than a historic "dust bunny" in the church that it is said that God (aks Christ) charged him with leading... through Peter.

Maybe it's why he is bullying the poor undefended gay fellows with no true power?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:21 PM

"The callous and conservative v the reasonable and progressive"

If ye didnae laugh ye wid greet!!

But oh so "liberal"!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:30 PM

Me? liberal????


Oh..right.... guilty

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 09:39 PM

What Ed said in this message (6:51 PM) is quoted from the 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is hosted by newadvent.org, which seems to believe that the 1911 edition is the latest word on things.

Many of the rules Ed cites are still on the books - but they're not the way the Catholic Church really functions. Conservatives tend to be legalistic, and often they get righteous and angry and frustrated when things don't go according to "the rules." What they can't understand is that things rarely function according to the rules, and the person "in charge" is rarely the one who makes things work.

Yeah, I suppose that Ake is right that the Catholic Church is opposed to homosexuality - but in my 61 years as a Catholic, I have heard negative comments about homosexuals from the pulpit only two or three times. Far more often I have heard priests privately condemn other priests who were less-than-welcoming to homosexuals. The primary rule is compassion, and most priests and nuns believe that the law of compassion trumps any obligation to condemn homosexuality and other "sins of the flesh." Lay people are far more likely to be hardliners on "the rules." I think that a good many priests learn compassion from what they hear in confession and what they see when they visit hospitals or deal with bereavement - bishops don't have that opportunity.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 03:35 AM

Royston, your situation is interesting.
Is it the case that Islam is more anti gay than Catholoicism?
Is it possible to be an openly practicing gay man within Islam?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:38 AM

I meant to say something before - Royston, I'd like to hear more from your perspective.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:48 AM

Not wishing to derail this interesting (but ultimately self serving) debate, but as the original question was about the pope speaking some sense, the following make me chuckle...

Click on http://www.viz.co.uk/newstrip.html and select Johnny Fartpants.

I'll get me coat.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 09:48 AM

What Joes O says about the way the RC church operates today (especially in the USA, and lesser so in other western countries) is correct. Moves towards increased freedoms in the western world in the 60's and 70s gave more local and individual decision making freedoms, somewhat enshrined through Vatican 2 (I believe in the mid 60s to 70s) Adding to this was lower attendance in western RC churches, financial concerns, and questions arising from RC church scandals, such as internal pedophile. However, the RC Pope kept much of his power over the RC church on the books. I suspect many of the freedoms Joe refers to have not been extended nor accepted in many other world nations, those where many of the world's practising RCs live.

While I accept Joe O as an authority on some RC church doctrine matters, I do not accept his views as an authority on other RC issues (i.e. how the church handled cases of child sexual abuse) than any one else. He clearly has a pro RC church bias (not that there is anything wrong with that), as we likely all have other types of bias. I expect Joe is frustrated by what he sees as wrong, and is struggling to come to grips with what is important to him in a way that maintains his faith in the RC church (though he can speak for himself on this). An example of similar bias that comes to my mind is a mother of a criminal, who cannot see the bad in her child and grasps at any illogical reason to justify the bad behaviour. However, I do detect much frustration in Joe O with the church, as I suspect many others share. It is logical to retreat to what is more comforting, a place where you can make a real difference, the local parish and church. In frustratiion, I chose a different faith route....which some others did also. None are wrong, as inner peace is paramount.

Joe seems to explain away the way the RC church handled the pedophile priest cases as being a result of less control from the center, and more from the local parishes. I submit that this theory does not hold water under close examination. Below are some of the reasons I make this claim.

1)        Much of the reported sexual abuse occurred many years ago (50s, 60's 70's), when the Pope and RC Church center held greater control of local church affairs (no pun intended).
2)        Much of the religious freedoms Joe states are recent, and more pronounced in the USA.
3)        RC sexual abuse cases have been reported in many countries and have a similar pattern of denial, priest transfers, cover-up and a failure to inform the authorities, local parish structure or the faithful that the abusers were in their church.
4)        Some (if not much) of the countries where child sexual abuse occurred were countries where the RC church had much power and government acceptance and less power in the hands of the parish or the faithful….(i.e., Quebec Canada, and Ireland).
5)        Financial considerations have been paramount to the RC church. While many of the crimes occurred in the past, financial compensation occurs now…a convenient time to pass increased authority, including financial, to the local parishes.
6)        There are many cases of the transfer of pedophile priests by bishops to other locals….not innocent parishioners. Many of the transfers involved other bishops and countries. This leads one to suspect that knowledge of the abuse was broader than the local parish or bishop. Broad matters would tend to get the attention of Rome.
7)        In many of the cases children involved had advised authorities and more senor church representatives. In many cases this did not result in a change.
8)        Some of the priests having knowledge of the sexual abuse were promoted to higher levels in the church. This did not seem to be a career limiting thing (i.e. Bishop Lahey, who recently .was charged in Canada, and led RC church compensation negotiations for sex crime compensation).
9)        Many of the lay people in the RC church were unaware of what was happening in their own church and parish….even in cases where the Bishops knew.

As to the Pope speaking out, we all know he has the right to public ally state his personal view, or those he feels represents the RC church interests. Most in the liberated western RC churches do not pay much heed to what they do not support. However, this may differ in other countries, where church, state and personal freedoms are not as broad. There is a danger that the faithful would be less prepared to take the statements as likely as, let's say, those in the more freedom-loving USA. Additionally, papal statements can be used by bigots and shady political leaders as reasons to treat other folks badly.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 12:20 PM

I have been away from this thread for a long time too and have only very quickly flicked over much above, but I am surprised not to see outrage that the UK government has succumbed to lobbyists to such an extent that the newly formulated obligation to give factually correct sex education is now to be watered down to such an extent that the purveyors of guilt and poison are to be allowed to attach to every piece of factual information they give the shibboleth that using the information will damn your immortal soul to eternal torment.

The more I see of religion the less I like it.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 02:59 PM

Well, Ed, I still think your perspective is skewed. You are looking at the Catholic Church through a purely Machiavellian perspective. There was validity in a Machiavellian perspective in the Middle Ages - but even then, the Pope was one of many power brokers in Europe; and the ultimate power rested in a balance among all those centers of power, not in any one individual. You don't seem to be able to let go of your thinking that the the Pope is (or was) an absolute dictator. Church history shows quite clearly that the Catholic Church was never an absolute dictatorship, even though it appeared to be so on paper. An org chart is a two-dimensional view of an organization, and most org charts show a supreme authority on top with lots of powerless worker bees on the bottom. Managers like to think that's the way their organizations work, but managerial thought is rarely accurate.

In actuality, every organization has many power centers, some constructive and some destructive; and the most effective power is only rarely at the top. I would say that it would be more correct to say that instead of being strictly a top-down hierarchy, the Catholic Church is a loosely-connected network of old-boy clubs. While they share the same faith and doctrine worldwide, dioceses operate with very little direction from Rome. HOWEVER, there is an old-boy network of bishops that consists of strong ties within nations and looser international ties. Men who were groomed to become bishops were sent to national seminaries like the North American College in Rome, where the old-boy networks of bishops have their roots. Those destined to become parish priests went to local or regional seminaries, where their own old-boy networks had their roots. I don't know how it is in other nations, but the priests who were able to raise money and build buildings were the ones with the most power in the U.S.

It appears that in the twentieth century, the power center of the old boys network of the Catholic Church in Ireland was the Archbishop of Dublin - not the Pope in Rome. And even the Archbishop was not an all-knowing authority. Religious orders have always been largely autonomous, often in conflict with the power structures of the dioceses where they operate. Bishops - even the unusually powerful Archbishop of Dublin - have little power to affect what happens within religious orders.

And still, it you look only at the tops of dioceses and religious orders, you're not getting a realistic picture. The rule that "all politics is local" applies very strongly to the Catholic church. Ultimately, whatever good or bad that happens in the Catholic Church, happens at the local level - with authorities in the diocese and Rome having very little knowledge or control. And it has always been that way - you can see the same phenomenon in the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul. And it would be a mistake to think that lay people are completely powerless. Some are, but most parishes are at least partly controlled by powerful groups of lay people.

I'm not denying any of the problems or scandals of the Catholic Church. What I'm saying that if you want to understand and cure those problems, you have to have a realistic understanding of the institution - and an org chart understanding is just not realistic. I think you'll get a more realistic view of the Catholic Church if you see it as a body riddled with cancer. Some parts of a cancerous body remain healthy, and continue to function normally until the entire body dies. Now, the head of the body may or may not be healthy, but most likely you'll have little effect on the cancer by replacing the head. Now, please note that cancer grows in separate parts of the body, and tends to spread from one part to another. To cure the cancer, you have to treat ALL the cancerous parts, not the head.

To a large part, Mudcatters have an overly simplistic understanding of the child molestation scandal in the Catholic Church. As they see it, the Pope failed to control the bishops, who in turn failed to control the priests. As Ed explained it, the Pope is the boss of the bishops, who boss the priests, who boss the people - so, according to his logic, everybody failed to boss properly. Some have described the Catholic Church as a "child abuse conspiracy," and that's not really the case, either. While child molestation and abuse have been widespread in the Catholic Church, there are many parts of the Church where such scandals did not happen at all.

I know it's hard for some people to accept, but all of those crimes of child molestation and child abuse were committed by individuals, not by their superiors and not by their institutions. Each of these crimes was an autonomous act of an individual. Now, there need to be structures to root out and control these criminals, but it should be remembered that ultimately it is the individual who commits the crime. Bishops and others committed cowardly crimes by covering up acts of child abuse, but the coverups were done mostly to protect power and finances, not as some sort of conspiracy to abuse and molest children. And if the problem is to be brought under control, it must be understood that bishops have a very limited ability to control their priests and lay people. If a crime of child molestation happens within a family, to what extent is the family to blame? The same principle applies to a church. A church is no more able to control the actions of its members, than a family is able to control its members. There is some control and some responsibility in both situations, but that control and responsibility are limited. Child molestation is a very complex problem, and it cannot be resolved simply by a proper execution of authority. On the other hand, it will become far worse if people in authority ignore or cover up the problem.

I suppose you could propose that the Catholic Church solve its child abuse problem by operating on a strict, hierarchical authority structure, and some people think it does operate. But who would want to belong to an organization that is totally controlled by a benevolently dictatorial Old Guy in Rome? Yeah, there are a few extreme right-wing wackos who claim to obey only the Pope; but mostly they obey what they think the Pope ought to be saying. Catholics find the center of their spirituality in their parishes, not in Rome.

So, get this straight: the Catholic Church is not an org chart with the Pope at the top. It is a complex, highly political organism with an infinite number of largely autonomous power centers. Nothing significant in the Catholic Church can be accomplished by the command of one man, even if that man is sometimes called the Vicar of Christ on Earth. It just ain't that simple.

But nonetheless, Church politics is fascinating, and I've studied it all my life.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:04 PM

Are there differences between the experience of Gay Muslims and Gay Christians? Probably, but it depends a lot on where you happen to be and in what sort of a community you happen to be a part of.

In the UK, Gay Muslims receive a good deal more abuse people for the fact of being Muslim than they do for being gay - whether or not any homophobic abuse comes from their own faith or ethnic communities.

The only significant Qur'anic reference to homosexuality is the story of Lut (Lot in The Bible). It is the same story in both traditions, the same doubts and disagreements apply. Did God destroy the cities of the plains for homosexual acts per se, or was it for the total collapse of any sort of law, decency and order resulting ultimately in rape, including the rape of angels. Whereas people always quote Sodom and Gomorrah as a justification for homophobia, Gibea was destroyed in much the same way but following a heterosexual rape (Judges? I think).

The only serious proscriptions on sexual conduct in the Qur'an relate to promiscuity and sex outside of marriage.

So homophobia is essentially a set of cultural baggage. I's that way for Muslims, for Christians, for Jews and Hindus and Buddhists. It's also that way for the atheist or agnostic bigots.

In Muslim communities, the community is far more important than any individual, but every individual is incredibly important because the community can't exist without them and it depends on everybody showing an equal level of respect, care and courtesy to everyone else.

So a gay man or woman can be known to be homosexual and can normally expect to be treated with exactly the same public respect and courtesy as any other member of the community.

Now, that person might be the topic of intense gossip (either salacious, supportive or of the disapproving type) that's just people being people, to expect and receive respect and courtesy is all that anyone (Gay or Straight) really aspires to. There will be some bigots that use faith as a justification for their prejudice, but faith can't be the reason for it because others will find their faith motivates them to be compassionate and respectful.

The caveat for a Muslim may be that you have to play your role in the status quo. Acknowledge people's sensibilities, be respectful, behave according to the community's understood norms of politeness, modesty etc. It's the same for any private behaviour, gay or straight. Is that a bad thing? Do what you like but do it privately and respectfully?

It isn't a lot different, in my experience of both types of community, to some Christian religious communities in the USA, or in Europe (Germany, Switzerland spring to mind).

If you are in Saudi Arabia, be afraid. Very afraid. If you are in Iran, keep your head well down. In Asia / South East Asia, communities can be surprisingly tolerant, embracing even. Male intimacy (non-sexual) is an accepted and normal way of behaving. There is far more of a mystical tradition of Islam that stems from the pre-Islamic religions and it can be very much easier to be a part of a sexual minority - but more so if you fit the template created for those minorities. In some places it is easier to be an effeminate gay man than it is to be, or to appear to be, more typically masculine.

It's complicated. It varies. Yes, allowing for all the variables it is probably as easy to be an openly gay Muslim as it is to be an openly gay Catholic. Maybe even easier, in some ways. Islam does not "pronounce" on anything - there is no structure for pronouncing. Sure, it doesn't stop some Muslims from pronoucing on all sorts of things but they are rather like the sound of one hand clapping - they have no authority and Muslims have to decide to take it or leave it.

What you learn from a thread like this is that with all the apparatus and authority that The Pope has, individual Catholics will still, naturally, follow their own conscience as they go about life. You can't assume anything about the ethical conduct of a Catholic person, just because The Pope asks them to act in certain ways. The same for an Anglican. The same for a Muslim, a member of a faith that has no central authority whatever. You have to get to know and understand individuals - a good rule for any situation.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:18 PM

Joe O

Maybe my concept of accountability of the Popemay seems skewed, or even foggy from inside the RC church, which yoiu claim has a complex old boys organization. That may be a reason, but not a good excuse for clear inaction, and deception from inside the Church structure.

To me the person at the top of any organization has some level of responsibility, (to stop clearly identified cruel and illegal sexual abuse and clean up the house) or they should step aside. This happens in other organizations and governments...even the ones who do not claim to be holy and representing christ on earth in any way. I would expect no less from the RC church and the Pope(s) as it's leader and only person who could impact more rapid change. n fact, expect more than I would expect from a company....let's use a car maker or governmnt department, as examples.

You say in defense that the crimes were committed by by individuals, not the RC church. Well most crimes in society are committed by individuals. It is the responsibility of organizations and people in a position of power, (they work on hahalf of), to put a halt to it. Many organizations succeed in halting individual wrong doing and in making changes to limit others from doing the same thing. The RC church failed to do this....and failed over decades., not months or years. Should we expect less of the RC church than a private company or a government department? Given its mandate, I expect more. Your argument that it is the individual not the church who committed a crime reminds me of the USA gun lobby defense statement that "guns kill, not people".

Your faulty analogy to the church and a family is a red herring, only serving to cloud, rather than clearify the sad and unchristian history of abuse in the RC church. Additionally, maybe some churches did not have cases of abuse. But many churches do. Looking at the reasons why could provide guidance for future structural change. But, does nothing to justify harm caused by decadades of sexual abuse inside the RC church that was condoned, covered up, and allowed to continue to grow with little concern for the health of those impacted nor the impact on the innocent faithful.

I suspect that what we know of cases of child sexual abuse are only the tip of the iceberg, as many victims and abusers arenow older or deceased and chose not to come forward and face the public embarassment.

My mother was a very faithful RC who blindly believed that the RC church could do no wrong. Luckily, my father (a christian man) was an alert parent and skeptic. I believe my father spared me and my family from some of the horrors a few of my friends experienced inside the holiest places in the RC church. There parents unknowingly offering them up to these so called holy men.

Oh well....I will not labour this topic. You have your views and perspectives. I have mine. So be it.

It is related to the topic posted. But, possibly takes the discussion away from the direct theme .

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:22 PM

Bill ....liberal in name only it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:23 PM

"That may be a reason, but not a good excuse for clear inaction, and deception from inside the Church structure.

( I stopped short of adding lack of compassion for the victims....but now feel that this should be added to my statement above, for respect to the abused).

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 10:12 PM

"Bill ....liberal in name only it seems."???

I am a slow ersatz liberal,I guess. I don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:19 AM

Ed, you fail to define the flaw in my analogy between a family and a church where child molestations occur. Where's the flaw?

What happens in a family when Sweet Uncle Chester molests a child? At first, the child or children say nothing, because they're confused and maybe scared. Then, when they say something, adults don't understand. When the adults begin to understand, they can't believe that such a nice man would molest children, and they're sure the children must be confused somehow. And when they finally understand, Chester's wife puts up a fuss and stops the family from doing anything for a while, because she feels she and her husband have been betrayed by the family. Finally, somebody calls the police - but years may have passed since the first incident. Many molestation cases are hidden in families for generations.

Well, the same dynamic happens in a church - except that in a church or any institution, the institution gets blamed and the molester is largely forgotten; and the church ends up with a damaged reputation and a big bill to pay.

The big difference between molestation in a family and molestation in a church, is that the family is not financially liable for crimes that take place within the family. They may have to pay bills for treatment, but not million-dollar settlements.

That being said, yes it is an absolute shame and a scandal that such things happen in churches, and coverups and callousness are inexcusable. The Catholic Church should have had systems in place that made it easier to detect, report, respond to such crimes.

But don't think for a moment that any program is going to stop molesters. Most likely, any molester will commit a number of crimes against a number of victims before he is caught. There are no sure-fire methods of detecting potential molesters; and there are no sure-fire treatments to cure molesters, either.

In 1968, the members of my seminary class were the first in the diocese to go through a battery of psychological tests and interviews that were supposed to root out people with psychosexual problems. The process was only moderately embarrassing and demeaning at the time, but it got worse. I understand that in later years, psychologists required seminarians to look at child pornography and other types of pornography to see if the young men would be sexually aroused by it. And there is no evidence that any of this extensive and expensive testing did much to prevent child molestation. However, I have to admit that I felt there was an unhealthy sexual "charge" to the atmosphere when I was a college seminarian - guys hitting on other guys and such. After the testing, six or seven members of my class didn't show up for class one Monday morning, and we learned they had been asked to leave the seminary. And the sexual charge disappeared, so maybe the testing DID do some good.

In the US in the 1970s, the Catholic bishops built several treatment centers for priest with sexual or alcohol problems, and they spent millions on treatment programs and believed these programs would "cure" errant priests. Well, the treatment programs didn't work, either.

So, Ed, it's not that people didn't care or that nothing was done. It's that the programs the bishops believed in, didn't work. Yes, there were far too many coverups and far too much callousness, but this really didn't happen in most cases. More often, people just didn't know how to handle these problems, and they made horrible mistakes.

Ed, you seem to think that the all-powerful Pope should have stepped in and told those nasty molesters not to molest, and they should have obeyed since they were priests and supposed to be obedient - and since they didn't obey, the Pope was a failure. It just doesn't work that way. Nobody knows how to prevent child molestation, and nobody knows what's the right thing to do once it happens.

The whole thing was a horrible mess, and the Catholic Church handled it horribly - there's no doubt about that. The Catholic Church in the U.S. has developed all sorts of controls that are supposed to prevent such a scandal from happening again - but who knows if the controls will work? And will these controls be implemented in other countries, and will they work there? Who knows???

Ed, you say the pope should take charge of this whole thing, but I don't think that's a good idea. It's much better handled on a national level, because there all sorts of cultural implications to take into consideration. That being said, the current Pope has dealt quite sternly with national councils of bishops who have not dealt with this problem seriously. John Paul II did very little, and barely even acknowledged the problem. For the last ten years of his papacy, he was probably too sick to function as Pope. He should have resigned, but he saw himself as a living martyr, suffering for his people. Give me a break....

If you want to get a good perspective of the child molestation scandal in the Catholic Church, watch the Meryl Streep movie Doubt. Maybe then you'll understand that there are no easy answers.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:07 AM

Just one point, having had time to read some of the longer tomes here..

It would appear "we" have a simplified view of the buggering of children.

Children were buggered by priests, but don't confuse that with being buggered by chartered accountants. The children were in the care of the priest in his position as a figurehead of the church, and the church didn't do what the law requires of them; to report crimes to the appropriate authority.

Whether the church as a whole is comfortable with this or not is irrelevant; decisions were made by church authorities to break the law in order to harbour criminals.   The Vatican end has to either sack the employees for bringing the company into disrepute, (disown criminal activity in their name) or accept a degree of corporate culpability.

I am somewhat pleased to see the pope has made it clear his disgust at the actions of the actual priests, but he has yet to address the corporate culpability within all this.

So... with that in mind, who is he to moralise to governments? (The thread, in case anybody has forgot.)

Oh, in case anybody thinks the terminology I used is homophobic; Two men are capable of making love. Priests with children? Buggering is an apt term.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:36 AM

GUEST,Steamin' Willie
I am not sure that any love was in fact involved, but most were not defined in adults in any way. I am not sure if buggery was the main sexual act involved (versus oral sex)...and most folks who are homophobic tend to demonize homosexuality with that example (though buggery is not limited to homosexuality, or even human to human sex,of course).

Your analogy with a corporation is much more valid than Joe Os with a family (which I will directly address later). Raping or sexually abusing employees is taken as a serious offense in most major western corporations. If you do it, or are reported to do it, I suspect there would be serious internal consequences (possibly firings), authorities involved and mitigation measures put in place to limit it happening in the organization. Much attention would be placed in healing and compensating the grieved employee(s). Not so with the RC church, it seems.

If a major corporation entrusted with some level of protecting the environment pollutes, than the offense is obviously taken more seriously than pollution from a corporation whose task is heavy manufacturing. Well, the same goes for the RC church. This church philosophy is that it has been entrusted to be the guardians of Christ's (aka Gods)mission on earth. That alone makes the way they dealt with sexual abuse and rape of children more damning in my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:37 PM

Catholics did take the child molestation scandal seriously, very seriously - and they still do. In most cases, the offenders HAVE been fired, Ed. They're gone, no longer functioning as priests. The "corporation" has paid damages in the billions of dollars - all donated by people who had nothing to do with the crimes committed. Many innocent employees lost their jobs because their salaries were used to pay settlements. The Pope has apologized time and time again to the victims, and bishops have been sacked or moved to sinecure positions. The job is mostly done in the U.S. It has a good start in Ireland, but there's a long way to go there. Other scandals will be uncovered in other nations, and new incidents will be discovered in the U.S., Ireland, and other locations - but at least the Catholic Church has acknowledged the problem and has developed ways to respond to it.

It's true that this should have been done long before (and in a huge number of cases, it WAS done long ago), but that's water under the bridge. One of the primary organizations that has fought the child molestation in the Catholic church in the U.S., is http://bishop-accountability.org (click). Follow the link to their database, and you will see the stories of all known priest sex offenders in in the U.S. The stories are not happy ones. Sometimes, it took years for action to be taken. But for the most part, the cases have been dealt with by now - and the Catholic Church paid a huge price. If you want more information, look at the Website of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, http://www.snapnetwork.org/. I have to say that I don't really like either of these organizations. They seem far more interested in vengeance, than they are in healing the damage done and preventing further damage. Still, they provide worthwhile information.


And Ed, I see you still haven't found logic capable of refuting my family analogy.

I also have to say that I'm getting really tired of the oft-repeated contention that since the Catholic Church did wrong in the child molestation scandal, it no longer has any right to speak out against anything it sees as injustice. Is it only the perfect who have a right to speak? Do you claim perfection?

So, what ELSE do you want, Ed?

And why are you speaking out about all this now? Where were you when I started speaking out about on this issue in the 1970s???

Sometimes, it really pisses me off when armchair experts come on here and make their solemn condemnations of all things Catholic, as if they knew anything about the subject. Since the late 1960's, I've called myself part of the "loyal opposition" in the Catholic Church. I've taken a lot of lumps for that from Catholics and non-Catholics alike, people who tell me I can't really be Catholic because I don't obey the Pope's every wish - I even lost a church job for being outspoken. So, now these Internet experts come in as the problem is finally nearing resolution, and they issue their all-encompassing condemnations. Even people who have worked for years to expose and resolve the problem, are included in their condemnations.



-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:18 PM

And Ed, I see you still haven't found logic capable of refuting my family analogy.

Patience, Joe O I will respond, though I have partially done so in my reply to steam'in Willies post. However,   I do notice your family analyogy is one that the Vatican has put forward before. Coincidence?

I work during the day and do not have time from woirk to respond to long posts, nor debate.

While you claim to have good knowledge of the RC church in the USA, it puzzles why you ask some odd questions about what I was doing in the 70s? I was in University for the first half...but, fail to see the logical relationship to the debate.

Here is some good reading for you from a person who is a faithful RC, suffered from the sexual abuse, suffered with his family for years and decided he had to come forward to save the RC church from itself. And, this is recent stuff....not from the 70s.


http://www.capebretonpost.com/index.cfm?sid=148036&sc=145

Note that this is the same parish (Antigonish Nova Scotia Canada) where there was much sexual abuse. When it was brought before the Bishop (Colin Campbell) he publically blamed the children for luring the priests into sin. He was kept in office for some time after....you guesses it little action happened under his post. After the person in the above article approached the RC Church to admit to the wrongs and appoligise (with little avail) he launched a class action suit. Only then did the church act and somewhat deal with the abuse (mostly financial). The person who was put in charge of the compensation package, Bishop Lahey then charged with importing child pornography (just a few months ago). Allegations have come forward that this same bishop was involved in showing male sexual pornorography to minors while a priest....which the church and authorities may not have even investigated at that time.

Anyway, be patient Joe....it seems that you are just getting too emotional and it is getting i the way of reasoned debate.

Be back to you after I have dinner.

---

Faulty link fixed - it was hiding your text. -Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM

Odd...half of my post dropped off. Can't redo it now, am off to dinner. Here is the link for you Joe O:

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:33 PM

Plantiff says he wants to save Catholic Church
NANCY KING
The Cape Breton Post
26/ 06/ 08

SYDNEY — Ron Martin says he's not out to get the Catholic Church, he's out to try to save it.
This week, Martin filed a class-action lawsuit against the Diocese of Antigonish claiming it failed to protect the children in its care when it became aware of sexual abuse by some of its priests, and also names the Roman Catholic Church and a church official.
Martin was a 12-year-old children's choir member at St. Agnes parish in New Waterford when he claims he was abused by Rev. Hugh Vincent MacDonald. For years, the only person Martin told about the abuse was his wife. Then, in 2002, his brother David committed suicide, leaving behind a note disclosing he had also been abused by MacDonald when he was an altar server. Martin had never known about had happened to his younger brother.
"I went through a tremendous amount of guilt because of that — I thought, what if I had said something years ago?" Martin says. "I've taken a long time to work through that guilt and now I'm not going to own that guilt. That guilt belongs to the people who were responsible for all of this.
"I had to identify my brother's body and I promised him that I would see justice for him and for everybody else."
David's revelations launched a police investigation that resulted in the laying of 27 charges, involving a number of complainants, against MacDonald. He died in 2004, before the case could go to trial.
The lawsuit, which contains allegations not yet proven in court and was filed under Nova Scotia's new Class Proceedings Act, involves claims that MacDonald and several other priests sexually abused children in their care between 1962 and 2008.
While some survivors of abuse by priests turn away from the church, that wasn't the case for Martin. He describes himself as a very active Catholic, serving as a eucharistic minister and lector, folk choir director and in other roles.
"That's been the most difficult thing, because I feel I'm sitting on both sides of the fence — I feel like I'm part of the defence and I'm the person bringing forth the legal suit. But I'm still trying to protect the church that I love. It's really bizarre."
He did pull back from leadership roles after his brother's death, saying he didn't feel the support from some priests or from then Bishop Colin Campbell. Martin switched to a new parish, where he was welcomed, and he and his wife are raising their eight children as members of the church.
As for why the diocese should be held accountable for the actions of an individual, Martin says that individual was placed there by church leadership.
"They said we've trained this man, we've ordained this man and we bring this man to you as leader of your parish, and we put him there in trust."
If those church officials knew that MacDonald had broken that trust before moving him to St. Agnes, they placed children there at risk, he adds.
Martin says he approached the diocese, asking it to release a statement acknowledging its responsibility for abuse involving some of its priests, and issue a public apology. He then went to Halifax lawyer John McKiggan, who has represented other abuse survivors, and suggested working with the diocese to develop a solution that wouldn't cause survivors to be revictimized by having to turn to the courts.
Bishop Raymond Lahey appeared open to the idea, Martin adds, noting he had dealt with similar circumstances when he served in Newfoundland. He also met face to face with Lahey not long after David's death.
"I said to him, I will not stop this until we get what we're looking for — that being a public apology and acceptance of responsibility.
"If I have to go to the highest court in the land, then that's where we're going, because I'm not letting this go. I've lost a brother because of it, I've lost part of my own life because of it."
Three years of negotiations between Martin and the diocese followed, but he says they failed, with no offer ever being put on the table.
In a news release this week, Lahey acknowledged that sexual abuse did occur with certain priests, some of whom were criminally convicted. The release indicated the diocese has offered a less adversarial settlement process to victims and diocese lawyer Bruce MacIntosh said a number of complaints have been dealt with, although he declined to say how many have been settled.
Martin says he was disappointed by Lahey's remarks, saying he has no knowledge of any process in place to assist victims.
In 1990, Martin wrote a letter to MacDonald offering him forgiveness, but asking him to take responsibility for what he had done by seeking forgiveness from the church and from his other victims. He didn't receive a reply, but Martin found the exercise to be freeing.
Filing the lawsuit is also liberating, MacDonald says.
"It's saying I have accepted what happened to me and I want to make sure it never happens again in the church that I belong to and the church that I love. It's freeing for me because it's going to free the church.
"I don't do any of this with malice, I don't do any of this with vengeance. I do this because I care — I care for the people who have been abused and hurt by the church, I care for the church that has allowed that to happen, and I care for the Diocese of Antigonish."
On the day the class-action was announced, five people came forward to identify themselves as abuse survivors, for the first time. None of them may ultimately join the suit, but Martin says that in itself makes it worthwhile.
Martin says he knows some people may look at him differently, now that he's gone public with what happened to him as a child, and he wondered how the lawsuit would be received by others in such a predominantly Catholic region. But he adds he's been amazed by the number of calls of support he's received.
"I worried about what people would say, like, 'what are you doing this now for?'" Martin says. "I have had calls from all over this island saying thank you for finally doing something because we know so many people who have been affected by this and the church just keeps sweeping it away, and if we're ever going to have a church that we can look at with pride, then something is going to have to change and this is the change they were hoping for."


By the way, Joe O the parish settled the civil lawsuit a few months ago...after years of ignoring the abuse and thoose abused. When the cases first came forward, the Bishop (Colin Campbell) blamed the children for luring the priests into performing sexual acts. You guessed it, nothing happened while he was Bishop. Once the civil suit was launched, Bishop Lahey was tasked to settle it out of court (parish must pay) and say he was sorry for the church. A few months ago Bishop Lahey was charged by the RCMP for importing child pornography.   Allegations later surfaced that he was also involved in improper sexual activity as a priest, and the childrens allegations (at the time) were brushed under the church and police carpets at the time. He is now facing thepolice charges, and the latter matter is being investigated.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:03 PM

Joe O

You speak of armchair experts….as if you have some inside feeling on the lifelong pain and life changing experiences of the abused innocent children (now adults) by by those representing the RC church organization.

I see your pain is the loss of image (I dare to say respect) for a church you put much trust in . Your challenge is to rise from the ashes of something you were likely not a party to and to be Christian enough not to put your frustration on those wronged, the abused. For their pain and impact from this abuse is broad and a lifelong curse for them. As a committed Christian, I expect you would be more humble and caring than that.

You seem comforted to dwell in the financial reparations grudgingly (only after legal suites were filed) paid by parishioners (guided by the RC organization) for the crimes committed by those in the service of the RC organization. Maybe you got suckered by the only part of the RC organization that could have intervened and made a difference to stop the shameful unchristian activity and did not knowingly do so….Well that is your internal RC cross to bear, not mine. (I chose to turn my back on it, remember)?

I often say to my children, saying sorry is easy and not enough. It rings hollow if you do not show that you understand what was done was wrong, proactively make reparations to those wronged and ensure them that that measures are in place to ensure it will not happen again. How does the RC church measure up to that elementary standard? To me it is a failing grade.

Why do I reject your analogy of incest in a family verses sexual abuse in a corporation? There a multitude of family structures, many healthy and functional, some less so, and others totally dysfunctional. A family is a small closed unit with limited resources to deal with problems occuring. But, a cooperation, like the catholic church, has a diversity of members, is open in structure and has a multitude of resources and finances to deal with complex issues….if it chooses to deal with them.

I realize the Vatican has promoted analogies with the family unit, to explain away responsibility for the RC sexual abuse. It may work and be comforting for you, but not for me.

Here are a few simple measures to put this sad era behind the Rc church and to start over:

1) Recognize the wrong that was committed and fix the problem Seek credible and independent help to root out those who abused. Do this in an open, public manner, not behind closed doors.
2) Do not dwell on the costs of repairing damages done by those in your organization.
3) Reach out to the victims and spare no expense to heal them and their families.
4) Recognize that sexual abuse at youth often has a deep impact on those abused, on their mental health and on their relationships with family and loved ones. Reach out in a Christian and charitable way to help those impacted to make them healthy and healed. Offer and pay for professional help.
5) Do not put those abused through the a legal system that puts them through the pain again.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:12 PM

Joe O

In a closing thought,,,before I retire for the night (different time zones).:

The abused are not the enemy.

Those who challenge the RC Church to seek the highest Christian standards are not the enemy.

The enemy is lurking within.

Personal and internal RC peace may elude you until you face the real enemy directly, with an open mind and Christian heart.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:21 AM

Well, whatever, Ed. It's obvious you have not carefully read what I have to say.

My primary attitude toward the institutional structure of the Catholic Church, is disdain and mistrust - not only on the issue of child molestation. Nonetheless, they provide the structure within which I function, so I consider them to be a necessary evil. They gave me a very good education, and I was employed by Catholic entities off and on over the years. I have fought all my life to right the wrongs of my church - and I haven't given up the fight.

The structure of the Catholic Church is riddled with corruption - I have no doubt about that. Nonetheless, within that structure, many wonderful people continue to function and to do wonderful work. Corruption is part of the nature of organizational structures. We can allow that corruption to overcome and paralyze us, or we can do what's right despite the shortcomings of the structures in which we work. And I have to say that there was no such corruption in the Catholic institutions where I was educated and employed.

The reality of life is that wherever we are, we have to coexist with a lot of assholes - and believe it or not, the assholes also have a right to exist. We can keep running away from them or blaming them for our own failures, or we can plant our feet on the ground and do what we need to do. I choose the latter.

For me, the primary tenets of the Christian faith are love of God and love of neighbor (and that requires one to also love the assholes). I agree wholeheartedly that many Christians do not follow those tenets, but their failures do not mean that I am required to abandon my faith and go elsewhere. So, instead, I do the best I can to keep the assholes honest.

What in the world gave you the impression that I think of the victims of child abuse as "the enemy"? I think of molesting priests and coverup bishops as "the enemy" - and I think of the children who were molested as completely innocent victims. I have nothing but sympathy for them - how could you think otherwise? You need to get better reading glasses or something...

HOWEVER, I think that all Catholics were betrayed by the molesters and by the bishops who covered up the crimes, and it's those Catholics, not the molesters or the bishops, who are paying the million-dollar settlements.

But still, I think that million-dollar settlements are excessive, and that's the going price for Catholic Church child molestation settlements in the U.S. - not for other molestation victims, but only for those molested in Catholic institutions. It's absolutely true that no amount of money can compensate the victim of a serious crime like child molestation. No amount of money can heal the victim. If the bishops and molesters were paying the price, I'd say they should all pay until they're bankrupt. But it's not the bishops and molesters who are paying - it's the ordinary Catholics who make regular contributions on Sunday. In my diocese, I'd guess the bill comes to about $1,000 for each contributor to pay off our $100 million in settlements.

I certainly believe there should be just and generous compensation, but our contributions have made a hundred millionaires - and haven't healed them of the harm that was done. Still, the money has been paid. I'm not asking for it back - but I still contend it did not solve the problem, and it cost a lot of money that was paid by people who did not cause the problem. But that's done.

Now, let's take a look at your little list:

1) Recognize the wrong that was committed....
2) Do not dwell on the costs of repairing damages done by those in your organization.
3) Reach out to the victims and spare no expense to heal them and their families.
4) Recognize that sexual abuse at youth often has a deep impact on those abused....
5) Do not put those abused through the a legal system that puts them through the pain again.

Ed, everything that you suggest has already been done. I gave you a couple of (hostile) links above, and here (click) is the official study commissioned by the U.S. Bishops. Click here for the entire list of documents issued by the U.S. Catholic Bishops on the sexual abuse of children.

OK, let me repeat my family analogy, so you can read it carefully and tell us exactly where the fallacy is:

What happens in a family when Sweet Uncle Chester molests a child? At first, the child or children say nothing, because they're confused and maybe scared. Then, when they say something, adults don't understand. When the adults begin to understand, they can't believe that such a nice man would molest children, and they're sure the children must be confused somehow. And when they finally understand, Chester's wife puts up a fuss and stops the family from doing anything for a while, because she feels she and her husband have been betrayed by the family. Finally, somebody calls the police - but years may have passed since the first incident. Many molestation cases are hidden in families for generations.

Well, the same dynamic happens in a church - except that in a church or any institution, the institution gets blamed and the molester is largely forgotten; and the church ends up with a damaged reputation and a big bill to pay.

The big difference between molestation in a family and molestation in a church, is that the family is not financially liable for crimes that take place within the family. They may have to pay bills for treatment, but not million-dollar settlements.

That being said, yes it is an absolute shame and a scandal that such things happen in churches, and coverups and callousness are inexcusable. The Catholic Church should have had systems in place that made it easier to detect, report, respond to such crimes.

Ed, that's the way child molestation works. It's a crime that can stay hidden for years, even generations - and when it's finally discovered, the natural response of people is to deny it. And when they finally come to acknowledge the allegations, they have no idea how to respond - because there IS no good way to respond.
As a federal security clearance investigator over 25 years, I investigated fifteen or twenty child molesters who had applied for security clearances, and I reviewed dozens of police reports and interviewed molesters and police officers and child protective officers. I know what happens.

No, the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church is not over. There is much that should be done that hasn't been done yet. If you want an honest and detailed assessment of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in the United States, take a look at this article. It was written by Kathleen McChesney, a retired FBI executive who served as the first executive director of the U.S. bishops' Office of Child and Youth Protection from 2002 to 2005. the article was published by the Franciscans in the St. Anthony Messenger. I think you will be surprised at its honesty.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:12 AM

The point here, for Joe Offer's benefit mainly, but perhaps a few others, is that this is not a "Catholic" thing, it spreads to people who do not follow that particular, or indeed any superstition.

You do not have to understand catholicism to state that a foreigner who exerts influence on a lot of British people should not abuse that position by commenting on UK proposed legislation.

Full stop.

Nothing to do with the Irish bishops taking their time to apologise and being carpeted at a meeting in the Vatican last week. Nothing to do with the ever emerging stories of abuse. Nothing to do with the millions of people who find solace and purpose by following a traditional religion and don't have to consider the history of it's leaders.

If we have to speak of fundamental issues, then rather than sexually frustrated priests, it may be more useful to speak of the more overall abuse. Making vulnerable people feel guilty is a rather fundamental aspect of most cults, and catholicism with it's mea culpa regime is an example that can and does shame human history. the riches of the Vatican compared with ragged arsed kids in Latin America is a comparison that at the very least asks a few questions? Even within Europe, I recall the poorest villages in Malta when I was visiting, with little running water, bare foot people and all clubbing together to build the huge monstrosities with gilded statues, massive ceilings all to the glory og God. What about the glory of building a bit of infrastructure for the village then? No. church first, live second.

If you were an alien visitor, you would scratch your space helmet at cults and their influence on people, especially vulnerable ones.

Now... the question from Joe was about questioning the right of the church to moralise?

Please don't get me started. My overall view is in the link I posted a few posts back to Johnny Fartpants.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 09:00 AM

Joe, Joe Joe,

You say I need reading glasses...I suggest (and it's just a suggestion) you take off you rose coloured RC glasses before you post....maybe just for a few minutes and once.... and think a bit from the perspective of a sexual abuse victim.

At times you do show glimmers of sympathy, but as the song says "but, then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like"....in your case repeating Vatican propaganda or whining about the money.... (Wasn't it Cyndi Lauper who sang "money changes everything"? Yes, the RC organization suckered many parishes for their sins and omissions. But, as a RC, you just have to "such it up" and move on. Dwelling on it, and waiting until you are dragged to the courts does not indicate sympathy nor compassion for victims and a resolve to do your best to help make a wrong a right. Parishioners live with costs of the RC mistakes...who can be paid....abuse victims (and their families) must live with a lifetime sentence of the results (check out the long term impacts of sexual abuse by those in authority).

There is really no point in going on and on about your fine RC experiences and stellar RC knowledge. It is fine that you are an internal protester and stuck with a sinking ship....do you feel you need a medal for that.   All your RC knowledge, internal protests and concern for the local RC finances does not matter to the victims, nor those who lost faith in the RC church, but, not God.

You seem to have big time contempt for former RCs who chose another, non RC route, and it does not look good on you (to me, that is). What's with that? Could some of the early RC programming be in conflict with the scatterings of compassion, libertarian and logic you often show in your posts?

Maybe there has been compassion shown to many RC abuse of victims in the USA, I do not live there. But,from accounts that I read it was mostly because the victims, after frustration about no RC action, came forward early and launched legal action, there was little of that before....yes, compassion after being forced or embarrassed into some form of action to save the imiage of the RC church. We see more and more cases around the world where the RC church has not aggressively sought out sexual abusers, nor proactively reached out to locate, assist, and show compassion and attempt to heal those abused. Just read the newspapers outside the USA.

Read the link I sent again....the article from the victim....it is not about money, it's about accountability, compassion and

You say "I think that all Catholics were betrayed by the molesters and by the bishops who covered up the crimes, and it's those Catholics, not the molesters or the bishops, who are paying the million-dollar settlements"

... And you wish we believe you when you say you have and see compassion for the victims, after saying that?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:43 PM

Strictly speaking, the compensation money has already been collected from the parishioners, so they aren't paying it as it is no longer theirs. However, it was obviously mostly given in good faith, so the Church has effectively taken it under false pretences. Whether they did that unwittingly or not is another question and not easily answered but what Joe says is quite true - that in a sense all Catholics were betrayed at least to some degree, but I don't think anyone has any doubt as to who was betrayed the most.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

Ed, I'm genuinely hard pressed to understand what kiddy-fiddling priests have to do with this thread. It's not as if The Pope condoned it. Tragically, all sort of organisations have been infiltrated by paedophiles - from Churches to schools to hospitals to Children's care-homes. I am fairly sure that most victims of child abuse were *not* abused by priests. In fact I would be staggered if most victims from a Catholic background were abused by priests. So the Church is not some sort of unique vehicle for child-abuse, but the revulsion may be all that stronger, given the particular position of trust and responsibility that the abusers occupied.

The way in which the Church tried to cover it up was horrendous, but then governments, councils, schools, healthcare trusts, social services departments: they've all had their scandals. Aren't they all equally bad?

Moreover, why does Joe Offer and any other passing Catholic, have to carry the cross that you have crafted for them for these offences of others? I don't get it.

If you need to lash out, why not lash out at the more statistically correct groups of perpetrators - fathers of young girls, uncles of young girls. All of them. Most paedophiles, the vast majority, fall into one of those two groups. You'd still be mad to carry on against them, just less mad than you seem at present.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:51 PM

As to paedophilia a woman has just been sentenced for screwing a 12 year old boy 200 times. He was given a pair of trainers as a reward for the first 100.

As to religion and its organisation, they are not NECESSARY evils, but unnecessary ones.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:57 PM

By the way, my last year at prep school when I was 13, one of the other 6th Form boys (also therefore 13) got off with a young school matron - she was probably about 20. The entire school was mad with jealousy, lucky bastard he was.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 08:36 PM

I could do with a new pair of shoes..

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 09:17 PM

Willie, you talk about barefoot people in Latin America with bad water, building fancy churches. Well.....there's a story behind that. My home town, Racine, Wisconsin, has eight Catholic churches, all within walking distance of each other. Each church originally served a different ethnic group. My understanding is that these people built these churches themselves, as a symbol of their presence and identity and pride as a community - ordinarily, they weren't instructed to do the building. It was done of their own initiative.
Now that the ethnic groups have grown wealthy and moved to the suburbs, their inner-city churches are empty, and the Catholic Church wants to close or consolidate parishes. You'll hear stories of church-closing protests all over the United States. People think of their churches as part of their identity as a community, not as property of the Pope in Rome.
Same thing applies in third world countries. Ordinarily, the first thing Catholic missionaries do when they arrive in an area, is work to improve the water supply. The general policy is NOT to attempt to convert anyone, but simply to serve the people. If the people like the efforts of the missionaries, they often will inquire about the Catholic faith, and then the missionaries will offer instructions. the missionaries may build a simple chapel or hold Mass outside, but the building of an elaborate church is usually done on the initiative of the community, not the priests - the people see the church building as a symbol of who they are, and they generally take great pride in their church. A pretty church may be the only beautiful thing many people can possess - and beauty is sometimes as important to people as water systems. So, don't be too quick to judge.

Then there's the perennial question of the wealth of the Vatican. My understanding is that Pope Pius V, who reigned 1566-74 (just after the Reformation), was not a very good pope. HOWEVER, he has his name on as many big buildings in Rome, as Richard J. Daley has on public buildings in the city of Chicago, where he was mayor from 1955 to his death in 1976. The buildings cost a lot of money, much of which was raised by the selling of indulgences - but please remember that the buildings provided employment for a lot of people without use of the most valuable natural resources; and the have brought millions of tourists to Rome ever since. Still, I would have sided with Luther and opposed the indulgence-selling campaign and expenditure of such huge amounts of money for those buildings, and I think it's obscene that the name of Pius V is plastered all over the city of Rome. No worse than Daley's name all over Chicago, though, I suppose. And despite my objections to the expenditures, I have to say I like the buildings of Rome and Chicago, and I can walk the streets and enjoy them without paying a penny (once I get there).

A great portion of Vatican wealth is in priceless art and architecture. I suppose they could all be privatized, so that they could be seen only by those who paid admission - but the people who originally donated or paid for these works of art, intended for them to be enjoyed by everyone. And if you go to Rome, you can't help but enjoy this stuff. Do you really want it all in the hands of private collectors?

The major portion of Vatican wealth is an endowment, a huge stock portfolio that supports most of the operations of the Vatican City State, so that it is for the most part not financially dependent for support on parishioners worldwide. This endowment came from reparations Mussolini paid for the Papal States, the entire central part of Italy, which were taken over by the Italian nation when Italy became a nation in the 1870s. I suppose there's always a question about endowments, and there's always a temptation to spend the principle for worthy causes instead of living of the income of the portfolio. And there are those who say the Vatican endowment should be used to pay the financial liabilities of dioceses, which are financially independent entities.

Well, as I've said above, I don't particularly like the Vatican, although I admit that there has to be some central structure in a worldwide church; so I'm glad there's no need for me to contribute to the support of the Vatican. Except for the separate contribution I give to Catholic Relief Services (to build those water systems and set up microfinance and fair trade cooperatives), my church contributions stay in my own area.

Ed, I have to say I don't know how to respond to you. Your vision seems to be clouded by anger, and I'm not sure where that comes from. I have no animosity against people who have left the Catholic Church. I have many formerly Catholic friends who have found a home among the Unitarians, and to a lesser extent with Quakers and Episcopalians. I have often been tempted to join them because I have many frustrations with the institutional church, but I have decided to stay. I have found that at least within my own parish and the institutions where I do volunteer work, I have have an effect on what happens.

And then you come up with this cockamamie horseshit statement that you think I see child molestation victims as "the enemy." Actually, for most of my adult life (1970-1980 and 1993-present) I have considered The Bishop to be the enemy (we had a really wonderful bishop 1980-1993). And John Paul II reigned as Pope 1978-2005 and I had nothing but disdain for him. My opinion of the current Pope, Benedict XVI, is "guarded."

As I partly indicated above, we had a remarkable bishop in Sacramento, Francis Quinn from 1979-1993. I first had contact with Bishop Quinn when I moved to Sacramento in 1980. Bishop Quinn dealt with child molestation complaints very quickly, and arranged for psychiatric treatment for the victims and referred cases to the district attorney for prosecution. The standard settlement amounts for child molestation in our diocese were $25,000 and $40,000, which was a fairly large sum of money in the 1980s. The offending priests were removed from ministry and people accepted the settlements, and made no more complaints. and then this whole thing came up again in about 2002-2003, and the Bishop of Orange in Southern California made a number of settlements at a million dollars each. All of a sudden, the attorneys for every Catholic-church child molestation victim demanded a million dollars. Some attorney lined up all the Sacramento victims who had been paid a long time ago, and demanded a million bucks apiece on their behalf - and the diocese paid, and sold property and close schools and laid off employees to pay the debt. Mind you, almost all of these victims had accepted settlements 15 to 20 years earlier.

So yeah, my diocese is a case of people having done the right thing at the right time, and then having to pay the price all over again when the story hit the press in the early 2000s. No, I don't blame the victims - but I DO question the attorneys, and I wonder how much the victims received after they attorneys were paid.

And Ed, you talk about my hearing Vatican propaganda on this child molestation issue. Well, actually, the Vatican said almost nothing about this issue until Benedict visited the United States shortly after his election as Pope - and what he did was apologize to the victims and scold the bishops for their slow handling of this scandal. He did not make any statement about excessive settlements at all, and I actually have heard no official complaints about excessive settlements. The bishops aren't in a position where they CAN complain, because so many bishops handled these matters so badly. But I'm paying the bill; and I can look at a hundred settlements of a million dollars each in my diocese, people who had already received a settlement - and I can say myself without any prompting from propaganda, that a million bucks apiece is a hell of a lot of money.

But Ed, I think you have some anger issues here, issues that are preventing you from carrying on a completely rational discussion. Get a grip on yourself, man!

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 09:36 PM

Royston,

The relationship is credibility of popes, current and past (whom the RC church docrine (regardless of how many street level RCs believe it, or anything else the pope says publically) claims represents christ on Earth. ...and whether they should focus on cleaning up   their own house (versus fleesing their parishes) before preaching to others worldwide on faithful ways to govern in this world....as the thread topic indicates.

I submit the actions of these(co called) holy people, these popes were similar in nature to condoning sexual abuse, by ignoring priest sexual abuse of children, in positions of authority, under the employ of the RC church...by allowing a cover-ups and the movement of offending priests to other unsuspecting locations...where they offended again, by sitting by while bishops blamed the victims and refused to compassionately reach out and help heal victims. Rather than effecting change...they did nothing, forced victims to go publically before the courts...where they were mostly successful in law suits....and then dump the bill on the local parishes...to save the Vatican booty.

Sure there is crime and sexual abuse elsewhere....but that is not the issue, nor makes these actions in a church that claims to be christian, any better. To make it worse, parishoners blamethat they must bear the costs of the settlements on the victims...rather than going after the Vatican and its billions accumulated over the decades.

And yes, other organizations have had scandals....but again , that is not the issue, nor makes it less revolting. In most of the other organizations, leadership from the top intervened, to make amends and to put measures in place to limit the occurance in the future.. Not the Popes....they preach to civil governments. Only recently, after decades of victims coming forward has a pope done the minimum...said he was sorry...Big fucking deal Mr. Pope.
As the song goes, "it's a little too late to do the right thing now"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 10:02 PM

Yes Joe...I do feel repulsed (that you brand anger) when anyone abuses innocent children or when those in authority do not intervene when they know it is happening ....and abuse them again by hiding the guilty. It is even more repulsiv, as noted in the thread title, when their leaders then publically lobby to limit the long fought rights of equality for those looked down on by societies...all because they fear that one of their churches may can't discriminate against a homosexual may want a job cutting their grass. Yes, it pisses me off.

"And then you come up with this cockamamie horseshit statement that you think I see child molestation victims as "the enemy."

Reread your posts Joe, you are fairly proficient at spreading the stuff. On the one hand you go on about your christia-compassion side and on the other whining and complaing about big costs from cases fairly won by those abused...sure seems like an enemy (as I defined it in my earlier post) to me. If you wish to recoup the costs for your folks, go after the Vatican....they can sell some of the properties and artworks....what the fuck does a Christian church need with millions or more dollars of artwork anyway....when many world peoples, many RCs have hunger and live in poverty.

Some were validly won in courts, some were settled, because the RC church realized they did not have good legal cases, some amounts were given to punish the RC church for a lack of acction.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:44 AM

Well, Ed, you lost track of the facts long ago.

I suppose you can't do it - but see if you can divorce yourself from all this for a few minutes. If a doctor were to molest a child, how much in damages should be paid by the clinic where he is employed? If the clinic were to offer a settlement of $40,000 in 1980 dollars, would that be reasonable? In 1980, $40,000 was about half the value of the average house in California, and there were places in the US at the time where you could get a pretty nice house for $40,000.

In most cases in the U.S., victims were offered fairly generous settlements that did not require them to go to court - they had to go to court only if they wanted a larger settlement, or if the offender was criminally prosecuted (that's the U.S. Constitution, not the Catholic Church, that requires that a criminal defendant be able to face his accuser in most cases). There were a few lawsuits that established the facts of the cases and set the amounts of settlements, but most of the complaints were settled out of court or in class action suits.

And in most cases in my diocese and many others, people who were compensated quite generously twenty years or more ago, came back for more money during the past decade. What happened is that there were a few dioceses like Boston that were absolutely callous in their treatment of victims. I think there almost were reasonable grounds for criminal prosecution of Cardinal Law of Boston. He lost his exalted position in shame, but he's lucky he's not in prison. Juries in Boston and some other places with similar problems were outraged, and awarded high damages to the victims - and rightly so. But those high damage awards set the bar high all over the U.S., even in places where church officials had conducted themselves responsibly - and hundreds of closed and settled cases were reopened with demands for higher damage awards.

Although you finally accept that Pope Benedict DID apologize personally and directly to a number of victims, you say he's too late, that he should have done it much sooner. Well, he did it in the U.S. within just a few months after he became Pope. I will agree that it was terribly wrong that no apology or even acknowledgement was made by John Paul II, who was pope 1978-2005. I despised John Paul II, and celebrated on the day he died.

And you talk about church leaders who "publically lobby to limit the long fought rights of equality..." - you neglect to say that the topic of this discussion was a statement that the Pope made in Rome to bishops to the UK, discussing a law that will affect the way those bishops act as employers. This was discussion within an organization, not lobbying government officials. And the concern wasn't about employees who cut grass - it was about people in teaching and pastoral positions. And are you upset that current and previous Popes spoke out against the U.S. wars in Iraq and Vietnam, and against unjust treatment of immigrants in the U.S., against the sex trade in Asia, against nuclear weapons, and against race discrimination in the U.S. Is it wrong for the Catholic Church to interfere with national governments by sending food to citizens who are starving?

And these artworks that you think should be sold - most are religious artifacts, donated for religious purposes. I don't know what the laws are in other places, but in the US, donations have to be used for the purpose they were donated for. These pieces of art were given for the enjoyment by the public - rich and poor, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Don't you think poor people should be allowed to see the greatest works of art known to humankind?

Facts, Ed, facts. If you want to carry on a rational discussion, you have to honor the facts.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 03:49 AM

"This was discussion within an organization, not lobbying government officials."

How disingenuous can you get?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 04:02 AM

So, Richard, who did the Pope talk to? A gathering of UK bishops in Rome, right?

And furthermore, doesn't the EU have laws that allow citizens at least some amount of free speech? He may be Pope, but he's a citizen of Germany, which is a member of the EU.

And can it be that organizations do not have the right to discuss legislation that affects them? It seems to me that the proposed legislation intends to do away with some protections that organizations (particularly religious organizations) have had in the past. Can it really be that these organizations dare not discuss this legislation?

I gotta say, you Europeans certainly are big on suppressing the right of people to speak their mind.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 06:03 AM

Ed: "Sure there is crime and sexual abuse elsewhere....but that is not the issue

But it is the issue! If you choose to raise this issue of child abuse, then it is important to recognise the awful truth that it mostly happens elsewhere. That the Church, as a body that was trusted to care for children, had people inside it abused that trust, makes it no different to any other organisation that was used by paedophiles to perpetrate abuse.

Ed: "parishoners blame that they must bear the costs of the settlements on the victims"

And so do local or national taxpayers when governmental organisations get themseves in the same state. Tell me where there is a rational difference please, Ed.

If The Pope was a leader with the power to affect the secular lives of Catholics or non-Catholics (whether believers in something else or in nothing at all), I would probably be as angry as you are, Ed. But he is not that leader and so I couldn't give a monkey's. He is free to say whatever he wants as far as I am concerned. I have said that I think he is wrong and that he can hardly "do good" by these pronouncements. But I'm not taking it out on innocent people, whereas you seem to be doing just that.

The thing is Ed, now I am speaking as someone on the notional receiving end of whatever prejudice Benedict stirs up by his most recent pronouncements, he is rather like the sound of one hand clapping on this point.

Catholics who are not reactionary bigots, and/or those that aspire to and achieve a Christian sense of compassion and forgiveness, will hear him, disregard him and carry on with life, doing good.

Catholics with fear and prejudice issues and a lack of compassion and forgiveness will hear him, approve of him and carry on with their lives and will continue to do harm.

Atheists / Agnostics should probably just ignore him. Atheists with socially progressive, humanist views will continue to be good to their fellow man, Atheist bigots or reactionaries - surprisigingly - will probably become "Catholics for a day" and heartily approve of Benedict's mumblings and take some bizarre support from him.

That, Ed, is a set of observations relevant to the topic. It is about whether the Pope is relevant to the issues about which he spoke, it is about whether he can change the way Catholics go about the world, let alone anyone else. I say probably not - because Catholics (like all groupings of people) reflect a range of the best and the worst that people can be, and where individuals sit in that spectrum has precious little to do with any man of Rome.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 12:56 PM

Royston, I recognize that you and Joe O use some of the arguments that have been put forward before by RC appologists to justify the sex scandals But, with all respects to you and Joe O. I am not one of the RC faithful (though I respect the internal faith decisions of others) , and, I do not fall for them because many are not logical.

I said
Ed: "Sure there is crime and sexual abuse elsewhere....but that is not the issue
You said
But it is the issue! .....

I disagree with your spin on that one. If someone kills kids in the UK for a black magic sacrifice , it does not address, or justify, this (the issue) by trying to diluteits seriousness by saying people frequently kill kids in Uganda for the same reason, thus it is not an issue. this is not logical... you are using a false analogy to put forward a straw and circular argument to jump to an unjustified conclusion....that a great number of people abuse children, therefore RC priests abusing children is not all that bad....The Vatican and RC spin doctors already tried that one...even putting forward the argument that many abused (excluding the ones who were abused by now deceased priests, of course) abused underaged teen aged boys....so it was not really that bad.

I stated "parishoners blame that they must bear the costs of the settlements on the victims"

You say "
And so do local or national taxpayers when governmental organisations get themseves in the same state. Tell me where there is a rational difference please"

OK, Lets use a recent example....a national government bails out of a car company in a community. The local community is not forced to bear the full costs...as it would be a signifant drain on their resources (i.e, Joe's multi thread complaint) the national government spreads the costs over taxpayers in the entire nation.

You imply that the Pope is not a leader with the power to affect the secular lives of Catholics or non-Catholics...well I don't care a monkey about that either...it does not relate to the issue of paying for sex abuse costs. The Pope (s) is"on the books" the leader of the RC organization, (as Joe O grudgling had to admit in a post) regardless of how you try to paint it and protect the guy did have a responsibility to come forward and ensure it was dealt with....not just to say I am sorry decades after.

A problem I have with your posts....as with Joes...is I am sure you are logical , thoughtful and compassionful people...but when it comes to debating anything RC. In your last post you use the terms "prejudice (anti-catholic)
"reactionary bigots" , "Atheists / Agnostics", , "Atheist bigots or reactionaries", " Catholics for a day" very negative terms at those who question the RC church in any way. You also forget to mention that Catholics are not the only Christians in the world....a fraudian slip maybe?   In earlier posts I see that anyone who questions or debates aspects of the the RC church, and especially the "sex scandal" these and similar terms are used....including the word biased. I will not copmment further on this...just wish to bring it to your attention....for you to mull over and consider that RC bias may also be a defining part of the RC church that may be central to the faith...but a barrier to logical discussion....just a thought and observation.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 01:51 PM

Joe, While, I don't have the time...but, I suspect I could go through your previous (RC related) posts here and on other threads and prove that you frequently confuse facts for: your opinions, generalizations "either-or" assumptions and " circular arguments". You often pously attempt to put your "RC expertise" forward to promote a position, I suspect hoping all will accept your posted word as fact. This may be "alright for some, but not alright for me"

You rarely give credible sourses or links to give back-up to your assertions, and frequently confuse what happens to you locally and in the USA as representative with what happens globally with the RC church experiences and affairs.   In other words, you are not actually proving anything through the factual route that you now seem to hold so dear.   We all have opinions, put them forward in debates...but few (including me) expect these to be considered more than opinions....unless backed up.

I have not, nor do I wish to challenge anything about the amount given to anyone who was offered, requests or was legallyally provided with funds to compensate (in some way) for RC sexual abuse. As I said before, and I repeat compassion is fine..."but, money changes everything"and the abused are not the enemy.

My suggestion as to possible funding sources was that only, a suggestion...it is an internal matter for the RC church and its faithful (not me) to choose to deal with, or not...not mine.

A few posts back, I attempted to end this discussion with you, as it seemed pointless and going nowhere and is not resolving any related issue with you or me. Plus, it is probably boring for others.

I suggest we return to the main topic..which you refer to at the end of your last post, if needed.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:16 PM

Ed, get this straight:

• There is no justification for the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. None.
  
• There are no excuses for the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. None.
  
• The victims were Catholic children, and Catholics are outraged that this has happened. What is happening now, is that people are trying to pick up the pieces, to come to a rational understanding why this happened, and to come up with solutions that will prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
  
• But for now, there are very few answers. Nobody understands child molestation, and nobody knows how to prevent it or to heal the damage it does.

Then you say this, Ed:

you are using a false analogy to put forward a straw and circular argument to jump to an unjustified conclusion....that a great number of people abuse children, therefore RC priests abusing children is not all that bad....The Vatican and RC spin doctors already tried that one...even putting forward the argument that many abused (excluding the ones who were abused by now deceased priests, of course) abused underaged teen aged boys....so it was not really that bad.

Where do you find this stuff, Ed? It doesn't make any sense at all. Who would dare to say that abusing children is "not all that bad." Now, there have been studies that have shown that sexual conduct with those past puberty is different from having sex with children who have not reached puberty. And yes, I do think that sexually molesting prepubescent children is a worse crime than molesting older children - but both are serious, criminal acts. Nobody is attempting to deny the criminality of any of these actions.

But Ed, you're talking with your anger, not with your head. I'm angry about this, too; but I know we have to calmly study the problem and come up with a rational, workable solution.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:25 PM

Oh, Joe O:...you won't give up, trying to score some last minute RC points, will you...even with my gentle hints, that's it's over :)

Remember that the RC church sex scandal had a big and long term impact on the behaviour of thoseabused . ya know...those who you say are not your enemy (your view, not mine)....what you sow is what you reap...kind'a stuff.

And now, you can post the last word...if it makes you feel good ...go for it

Musical content:"Whatever gets you through the night, alright, alright"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:50 PM

Well, Ed, there is one good thing that has come out of this sex scandal:
Catholics are now quicker to question authority. They've come to understand that bishops sometimes lie, and that priests sometimes commit horrible crimes. The illusion* of infallibility in the Catholic Church has died.
But Catholics have also come to realize that most of their very human bishops and priests, are pretty good people - but not perfect.
Those are good things.

Now, if only you could come to an understanding....

-Joe-


*the doctrine of infallibility is very limited, and applies only to very few matters

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 03:24 PM

And another word...
While I'm happy to see Catholics questioning authority, an interesting phenomenon has happened that distresses me: the cult of John Paul II.

Catholics may question the current Pope, who tends to talk in rational terms even when I don't agree with him. But John Paul II wasn't rational at all. He was very popular, so he relied on his popularity to carry him through things. And people still don't understand how inadequate he was, and how much damage he did during his long reign as Pope. They want him to be a saint, and they can't believe he could have done wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 04:27 PM

Joe

Your last word noted
Now don't be like a RC "foghorn leghorn"....our discussion is closed.
Please pull the plug...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 05:04 PM

Ed...You fail to note that most of these offenses were committed by men on pubescent boys.....The Catholic church did not encourage or instigate these crimes, each one was purely personal to the men who carried them out.

Where the Church failed was in being like any large organisation and practicing a form of damage limitation.

The Church can be criticised and censured for acting like a corporation and cowardice in the face of the evidence, but not for being the CAUSE of the crimes.

Any enquiry within the Church, should look very closely at the celibacy rule and rates of homosexuality in the priesthood.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 05:16 PM

akenaton
I do not dispute what you say.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM

It does seem that some here won't be happy until the Catholic Church is disbanded and its assets confiscated. This has happened in the past in England, France, and other places. Is this what's needed?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 10:34 PM

Ed, it doesn't look like you've been *discussing* anything, only lecturing and brow-beating.

O..O
=o=