 sj |
||
|
||
BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
|
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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:
-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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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: 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,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 - 06:18 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. |
