BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 07:29 AM

""Eirikr rauði Þorvaldsson (approx. 950-1003 AD) was called Erik the Red because of his red beard and hair and perhaps also because of his fiery temper.

It is said that he was a particularly hot-headed fellow who, after being exiled from first Norway and later Iceland for murder, and finally settled in Greenland.""

"Let's face it, he was no Mither Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:46 AM

Change hands...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:15 AM

"Beliefs are your business but facts are facts because they are checkable" -- Eric The Red

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:09 AM

"I can believe things that are true and things that aren't true and I can believe things where nobody knows if they're true or not. 

I can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Beatles and Marilyn Monroe and Elvis and Mister Ed. Listen - I believe that people are perfectable, that knowledge is infinite, that the world is run by secret banking cartels and is visited by aliens on a regular basis, nice ones that look like wrinkled lemurs and bad ones who mutilate cattle and want our water and our women. 

I believe that the future sucks and I believe that the future rocks and I believe that one day White Buffalo Woman is going to come back and kick everyone's ass. I believe that all men are just overgrown boys with deep problems communicating and that the decline in good sex in America is coincident with the decline in drive-in movie theaters from state to state. 

I believe that all politicians are unprincipled crooks and I still believe that they are better than the alternative. I believe that California is going to sink into the sea when the big one comes, while Florida is going to dissolve into madness and alligators and toxic waste. 

I believe that antibacterial soap is destroying our resistance to dirt and disease so that one day we'll all be wiped out by the common cold like martians in War of the Worlds. 

I believe that the greatest poets of the last century were Edith Sitwell and Don Marquis, that jade is dried dragon sperm, and that thousands of years ago in a former life I was a one-armed Siberian shaman. 

I believe that mankind's destiny lies in the stars. I believe that candy really did taste better when I was a kid, that it's aerodynamically impossible for a bumble bee to fly, that light is a wave and a particle, that there's a cat in a box somewhere who's alive and dead at the same time (although if they don't ever open the box to feed it it'll eventually just be two different kinds of dead), and that there are stars in the universe billions of years older than the universe itself. 

I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do. I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and doesn't even know that I'm alive. I believe in an empty and godless universe of causal chaos, background noise, and sheer blind luck. 

I believe that anyone who says sex is overrated just hasn't done it properly. I believe that anyone who claims to know what's going on will lie about the little things too. 

I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies. I believe in a woman's right to choose, a baby's right to live, that while all human life is sacred there's nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system. 

I believe that life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when you're alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it." 
― Neil Gaiman, American Gods

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 05:03 AM

Well I'm reeling from the most avid defence of the indefensible that I've ever read. Sorry, Joe, but you accuse others of spin, yet your post regarding Mother Teresa is just one huge piece of Catholic spin, a classic in its way. Nothing that Hitchens said about her was untrue, nothing. All well-documented. In fact, looking back at my post, the one you responded to, I was being far too generous to her. Pretending that the uncomfortable truth is "propaganda" is the ultimate in denial.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 03:43 AM

"And yes, she told the poor and suffering that their situation was virtuous - certainly more virtuous than that of the rich and comfortable and wasteful, one would think. Many people think that there is dignity and value in a life lived without material comforts. Is that such a horrible thing for a poor or suffering person to discover his/her own dignity and value?"

Very well said Joe. These sentiments are likely to be required more often as we come to terms with the economic changes which must inevitably happen.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:50 AM

And come to think of it, I think that the importance of Junipero Serra and Mother Teresa is in what they symbolize, far more than what they were as individuals. Like it or not, Mother Teresa is a symbol of all the suffering people her sisters have served, in India and all over the world. Despite (or because of) their conservatism, those nuns have lived austere lives that show solidarity with the poor and suffering. Because of Mother Teresa, the people of the world are aware of the poverty and suffering that exists in this world.

And those 21 Franciscan Missions in California are not primarily a symbol of Spain, or of the Catholic Church. They are a constant symbol of a very important truth: the Mexicans were here first. Californians harbor a lot of prejudice against Hispanic peoples, and it's healthy for California to have a reminder that the Mexicans have as much right to be here as the Anglos. The Spanish came and left, but the Mexicans are still here - and most of those missions are now functioning as Catholic parishes with primarily Hispanic congregations. Not rich folks, not even in Carmel.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:14 AM

Steve, I call that Mother Teresa stuff propaganda, concocted by Hitchens and his ilk. A minimal amount of fact and a maximal amount of "spin." She was an old nun, born in Albania in 1910. You won't find many people born in Albania in 1910, who would be supporters of abortion.

Bhopal? Here (click) is a 1984 NY Times account of Teresa in Bhopal, and here (click) is an account of the same thing, with a heavy dose of "spin" added. The second article derides Teresa for encouraging people to "forgive" those responsible for this disaster. That's a Christian thing, forgiveness - letting go of one's anger after an injury, so that one can go on with life instead of being consumed and destroyed by the anger.

And yes, she told the poor and suffering that their situation was virtuous - certainly more virtuous than that of the rich and comfortable and wasteful, one would think. Many people think that there is dignity and value in a life lived without material comforts. Is that such a horrible thing for a poor or suffering person to discover his/her own dignity and value?

That being said, it's clear that she was a Catholic traditionalist, and I probably wouldn't get along with her very well. She was a product of 1910 Albania, a very inauspicious and traditional origin. Considering that, I think she did a pretty good job of her life.

As for Serra, he built 9 of the 21 California missions, beginning with San Diego in 1769. Note that for the most part, Serra built his missions away from existing military garrisons, apparently to remove his parishioners from the influence of the Spanish army. If his goal was oppression and subjugation, why not locate them near the soldiers so they would be easier to control? Serra died in 1784, so most of the history of the missions took place after his death.

There's no doubt that Serra was a product of his time and culture, so it's unlikely that he could be considered "kindly" in his treatment of Native Americans. Still, California State Parks historians say the greatest suffering among Native Americans occurred after 1833, when the Mexican government secularized the missions and expelled the Franciscan priests.

I don't know why I bother defending Mother Teresa or Junipero Serra. Neither one is an inspiration to me. I'd much rather see Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day recognized as saints. But conservative Catholics do find inspiration in the lives of Mother Teresa and Junipero Serra, so why not let them have their saints?

Frankly, I don't believe the efforts that have been made to demonize Mother Teresa and Junipero Serra. Nobody could be as bad as their detractors make them out to be, so therefore I tend not to believe anything the demonizers say. Say what you may about Mother Teresa, one big thing remains: she brought the world to know about the suffering of the poor of India. The same could be said of Serra - his interest in the native peoples of California was primarily spiritual, not military or economic or political. Most likely, their fate at the hands of military and political powers, might have been far worse.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:52 PM

Then do try to drill a bit deeper, Kevin. She said that abortion was the greatest threat to world peace, she told the people of Bhopal to accept their lot, she told the poor that their situation was virtuous and she sucked up to the vile dictatorship in Haiti. And that doesn't begin to describe the horrors of her institutions, in which unqualified people abused the patients and let them waste away in neglect and squalor, whilst at the same time she was siphoning donors' money away to fund the expansion of her convents. You call that specious? I call that damning, both of her and of the institution that lionises her.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:46 PM

The creature intends visiting Ireland, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:40 PM

"The case against Mother Teresa" is pretty specious. As is the case against Junipero Serra, when you drill down into the facts and the circumstances.

I'd say what Francis said at the ceremony actually stands up well: "Junípero sought to defend the dignity of the native community, to protect it from those who had mistreated and abused it. Mistreatment and wrongs which today still trouble us, especially because of the hurt which they cause in the lives of many people." That doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes, like everybody else, and that there wasn't harm mixed up with the good.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:40 PM

"The case against Mother Teresa" is pretty specious. As is the case against Junipero Serra, when you drill down into the facts and the circumstances.

I'd say what Francis said at the ceremony actually stands up well: "Junípero sought to defend the dignity of the native community, to protect it from those who had mistreated and abused it. Mistreatment and wrongs which today still trouble us, especially because of the hurt which they cause in the lives of many people." That doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes, like everybody else, and that there wasn't harm mixed up with the good.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:26 PM

Well the case against Mother Teresa is rock-solid, yet she's almost there. An organisation that would venerate the likes of her has got a lot to learn and can't claim to be in any way progressive.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 01:58 PM

Hadn't heard of Junipero before, Greg, but from the wiki page and a few other things that came up in a search I agree it sounds a mistake. A Bright PR idea gone wrong, by the feel of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 01:51 PM

Thread Drift Alert - Sort Of:

The Pope made a pretty sunstantial mistake recently by canonizing Junipero Serra, a.k.a. St. Genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 01:40 PM

And, by the way, what else would it mean to say they are the greates commandments?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 01:32 PM

I didn't say it negates anything, Pete, and in particular it does not negate the requirement to use your whole mind in the first of the greatest commandment. But there are other passages in the New Testament, as you well know, where Jesus berates people for slavishly following the words of the regulations while forgetting the intention. So yes, you have to reflect on it all, but the touchstone for resolving things are always those two commandments in my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 10:22 AM

The Roman Catholic church has ordained women, under extraordinary circumstances, as in Bulgaria during the Communist regime. But in the Celtic Catholic Church (done in by the Synod of Whitby) women were not only priests, but bishops (e.g., Bridget of Kildare). There were co-ed monasteries, even. It was not unusual for a monk and nun to set out on journeys together. A nun could be a lawyer, a physician. But this wasn't in the "Roman Empire" model adopted by the RC church and so...Whitby. Sure, the date of Easter and the type of tonsure are important, but it was the forcing of the Celtic church into subservience that was the actual agenda of the Synod. It could be argued that the Synod was the actual beginning of British dominance of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 03:33 AM

I'm more optimistic. I think the Catholic Church will ordain women in about a hundred years - 150 years after it should have.

Our new Filipino priest gave a sermon on why the Church will never ordain women a couple weeks ago - at the Sisters of Mercy convent, a place full of nuns who are twice his age and more, and far better educated. The nuns said it was cowardly of him to make such a statement from the pulpit during Mass, in a situation that didn't allow for disagreement. They want him to return and discuss the matter over lunch. I gave him a little lecture about the matter this morning, but I don't know if it sank in.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 02:49 AM

I watched the mass today on television. Very interesting.

One of the commentators - practicing Catholic - that he sees no hope of the Catholic church allowing women priests any time soon. His view is that churches that ordain women allow their priests to marry, which automatically raises women's status in the church.

In his opinion, until Catholic priest are allowed to marry, there
will be no women priests the Catholic church, although he thinks they may well come up in rank in the meantime.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 10:36 PM

My views represent me.
So do mine. Exactly the same.

Maybe you think your views somehow represent some kind of mythical mainstream.
No, but they are much more mainstream than yours. That is just a fact.

I haven't got that sort of ego myself.
I have no sort of ego.

Just allow people to express what they think, Keith,
You should take your own advice Steve.
I would never ridicule and be belligerent to people who disagree with me.
You do that all the time, even though your views are so unusual.
I have complained before that it drives decent people away from the forum.
We actually saw it happen last week on the bugs thread.

and quit your abominable habit of appealing to majorities/historians/authority. Stand on your own two feet.

Before quitting, I would have to start.
I have never done that.
Just made up shit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 09:40 PM

Okay, here's some more food for thought:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

                   --DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS, NOSTRA AETATE, PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965.

No room here for all of it, but you might read Gaudium et Spes, promulgated December 7, 1965.

You might also read Big Frank's Christmas Speech 2014.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 06:19 PM

Translator's note, please. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 05:51 PM

Dmcg, whilst acknowledging that some ethical issues are not cut and dried, to quote the second greatest commandment as though it negates other clear commands , prohibitions and teaching, is a case of presenting false choice.   Surely a Christian should seek to consolidate the whole teaching of scripture, rather than take one passage and claim it allows, or nessecitates change in others.    Only where the bible indicates change, is that correct, as for example in the ot food law being modified in the nt.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 05:41 PM

The giveaway word in the quote, ed , is ......seems......       I doubt there is a conflict between the christian faith and science, though of course there is conflict over the interpretation of the data.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 05:25 PM

Keep it up, Joe. I'm a big believer in fighting from within. I didn't bother myself because, well, I found myself not believing in God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 04:33 PM

"Jesuits stand out among Catholics in a world where faith and science often seem to be in conflict"




Jesuits and current Science? 

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 04:13 PM

Mind you, the same goes for Pope Francis, Joe, it appears, among some Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:58 PM

Steve Shaw says: The Church still has a cast iron grip in so many places but I don't hear your protests. It's all very well quietly demurring, Joe, but quietly demurring tends to get nobody anywhere.

Believe me, Steve, nobody in the Catholic Church accuses Joe Offer of being "quietly demurring." More often, I'm viewed as some sort of heretic.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:07 PM

My views represent me. Maybe you think your views somehow represent some kind of mythical mainstream. I haven't got that sort of ego myself. Just allow people to express what they think, Keith, and quit your abominable habit of appealing to majorities/historians/authority. Stand on your own two feet. As for you, akenaton, I'll simply take that as a compliment and move on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 02:43 PM

Steve,
You appear to want to shut down a large part of the discussion about the Pope in order to keep the thread cosy.

Of course I do not!
I come here for the discussion and want everyone's views to be heard.

I merely point out how skewed the debate here is.
I may be wrong, but I think you sometimes forget how unrepresentative your views are, and I think that is why you object to that fact being mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 02:19 PM

What I will say is that this Pope does seem to be addressing, however obtusely the real problems in society, poverty, war, the effects of different economic systems etc.
They don't of course make such good headlines as marriage rights of sexual minorities, but on the scale of importance they are miles higher.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 02:13 PM

Steve, your inability to grasp any point outwith your own blinkered world view is legend on this forum.

Unfortunate,......but as they say, "get used to it"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 01:24 PM

Who is representative then? You appear to want to shut down a large part of the discussion about the Pope in order to keep the thread cosy. Is that what your belittling remark is implying?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 01:14 PM

Steve,
Well I'm a real person and, last time I looked around, I was in the real world.

Yes you are, but the "remark about the people on this forum not being representative of real people in the real world." was true and worth pointing out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 12:55 PM

The last two posts from akenaton are among his worst ever, which is saying something, not worth taking on. I don't know what society he's talking about, but it isn't the one I belong to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 12:44 PM

"...but it will be because of people like Steve and other opponents of Christianity, not people like you". Wrong there, aken. Change is organic, it happens from within, from people's lives, far more than it ever does in response to well meaning kibbitzers from outside.
...............................

As for the subject of this thread being how Americans find Pope Francis, that is only part of it. It's as much about how Pope Francis finds America, and about what people outside America learn about America and about Pope Francis and what he represents.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 09:00 AM

"This is my simple religion. No need for temples. No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind, your own heart is the temple. Your philosophy is simple kindness."  
Dalai Lama

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:39 AM

Thanks D, I think we'll agree to differ for present:0)
I would just remark that homosexuality is acceptable only in a very small part of the world and only to a transient small majority.
Homosexual "marriage" is still illegal even in part of the wicked old UK.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:32 AM

As I explained earlier Steve, "the family" is a strong component of society. It is championed by the Pope and all Churches.
Homosexual "marriage" and" abortion on demand, both negatively affect society. Firstly by redefining the meaning of marriage to encompass relationships other than "one man one woman", which removes procreation and the construction of family out of the equation.
One man one woman may of course choose not to procreate, or be unable to do so, but that would be personal choice, not edict.
It also opens the door to other forms of relationship claiming validation by use of the institution.

Abortion on demand weakens society in that life once created can be disposed of in the manner of a useless commodity, to serve PERSONAL convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:30 AM

I didn't mean to dodge anything, so I'll have another attempt. Society changes and at the moment homosexuality is considered acceptable. A few decades ago, it wasn't tolerated. A few decades before that, it was accepted provided nobody mentioned it. Oscar Wilde was well known to be gay but no one talked about it. Once it was forced into public debate, people found themselves obliged to be shocked and Reading Gaol beckoned. So I think we all agree society is a constant state of flux about this and other matters. I have said before that I am absolutely certain that there are ways you and I, Steve and Joe behave today that in 50 years people will regard with astonishment that we could behave so atrociously.

Now, is the church of absolute and unvarying truth in these matters? At the level of that second commandment, I'd say yes. But when it comes to what that rule means when you apply it, I'd say no. Thomas Aquinas was a clever old chap, but he lived a long time ago and only knew Aristolean logic. So when he talked about all sorts of aspects the church he backed it up with Aristotle. And we know know that what Aristotle thought about a great many things is about as reliable as his thoughts on medicine - that is, not very reliable at all. So consequently a lot of the thinking of the church, though founded on that excellent principle of the second commandment, is pretty suspect when it comes to how to apply it. This means I have great respect for what the founding fathers of the church tried to do, and how committed they were, and how carefully they reflected on things, but I still don't necessarily think they came to the right conclusions for now, however right they may have been for then.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:10 AM

I think you rather dodged that one D.

In society people do not always behave in a positive way, do you mean that you accept any sort of behaviour no matter how detrimental it may be to society.....because you yourself conform?

Isn't that a bit, "Pontius Pilate"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:00 AM

I was not aware that homosexuality or abortion were, even in the slightest way, a threat to family values, whatever they are. Maybe you could tell us. Hang on, let me have a guess: a man, his wife, two point four happy children, dog optional, a nice semi in the suburbs: am I getting warm? Did we arrive at it, or whatever your version of it is, by debate and due consultation? Would a committee be the way to go? And what country are we talking about here? Can we bring pretty young ladies cycling across the village green and the gentle thudding of leather on willow, not to speak of warm beer, into it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:00 AM

I don't think I promote ideas like that, Ake. I do accept them and am in agreement, though. And the reason is that blooming second greatest commandment "Love your neighbour as yourself". It is a lifelong task to try and understand what that means, and a great many times you have to look back and say, yep, I got that one wrong. But a good starting point is always to say If that was me, how should I be treated"   It's not infallible of course, but in the case of gay marriage I find it clear enough.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 06:49 AM

"It does happen to be the subject of the thread Steve."

Er, you made a belittling remark about the people on this forum not being representative of real people in the real world. Well I'm a real person and, last time I looked around, I was in the real world. On this forum I try to represent myself if I can. One can do no more. There are lots of Catholics in the US so of course he's going to get a warm welcome, enhanced no doubt by his cheerful and avuncular persona. It's all good stuff. I was simply making the point that his warm reception is not an indicator of his organisation suddenly turning benign. If you thought that were all going to applaud and let the thread die happy, you must be getting a little naive in your old age. I doubt that somehow. It'll be something else, I expect.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 06:38 AM

Yes D, but society does not always move in positive directions and is now very susceptible to manipulation, through the "social" and mainstream media.
Society no longer evolves change just happens without debate or due consultation.
In society "the family" is an extremely important constituent, the Church champions "family values", yet is under attack from so called progressive elements on all sides.
The negative connotations of homosexuality and abortion on demand have been detailed regularly on this forum. I just fail to understand why people like you and Joe, who are obviously sincere Christians, can promote ideas which run counter to family values and wider society?

The Corbyn analogy becomes apparent again, the "liberal" reformers think they can "manage" capitalism......Thechristian reformers think they can re-define sin. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:56 AM

"You want a yes-or-no answer, but the answer depends on the circumstances. And that's the case with every moral decision - decisions need to be made within context. A person has to weigh all the circumstances, and then make a decision. "

The whole premise of this is false. Wearing a condom is a matter of practicality, not morality. It's a matter of knowing what you're doing, knowing how to do it and knowing why you're doing it. Not giving your partner a disease or getting them pregnant at the wrong time are the moral issues and condoms are just one of several ways of expediting their accomplishment. You know and I know that there is absolutely no problem with condoms. If there is a moral issue, it's the Church failing to make that crystal clear in simple words to everyone. Why, that might even save lives. Now that would be moral. In wishing to acquire another instrument of control, the Church has turned artificial means of birth control into a moral issue, one that elderly celibate men can use to increase the average Catholic guilt quotient that bit more. The fact that the average Catholic bloke in bed with the missus neither knows nor cares, as you say, has everything to do with impatience with antediluvian notions and nothing to do with clear and enlightened statements from the Vatican (there never are any, just coded obscurantist waffle to pick the bones out of if you're intelligent enough).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:53 AM

What the people in the richest country in the world think of a Pope whose policies most severely affect the poorest people in the world, who the richest people in the world don't see very much, might not be the last word on the matter, Keith.

It does happen to be the subject of the thread Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:45 AM

The short answer, ake, is that as the world changes it is necessary to see how the existing moral code should encompass that change. It would be silly for the church to say there is nothing in the bible or traditional teachings about genetic modification so we cannot have an opinion. No, you apply your understanding to the new area.

But moral codes do not give yes/no answers, so I am afraid a lot of stuff I was taught as a child (This is a sin, that is not) fits into the category of "When I was a child, I thought like a child. Now I am a man I have put aside childish things". Let me tell you a short tale a priest visiting from a poor backwater of India told me. He had come across cases where parents deliberately maimed their babies because they could get an income as a beggar whereas they were likely to starve any other way. "And don't tell me", he said, "that what they did was wrong or immoral."

So I am not really interesting in whether or not birth control 'is' a moral sin, since as with that infant such simple yes/no answers don't help. A discussion is another matter, as that helps us to see that simple answers won't cut it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:16 AM

"And the birth control think is not a basic moral principle. It's an interpretation (an official interpretation). It's clear to me that the birth control interpretation is now in the process of being forgotten. I predict that in the near future, Catholic prelates will forget what they said about gay marriage."

I've no doubt that you are correct Joe, but it will be because of people like Steve and other opponents of Christianity, not people like you.

If the Church is to eternally evolve in step with society, its real purpose evades me.

Whether or not "birth control" is a moral sin needs proper debate, much of the world still sees having many children as a survival tactic. there is no chance of reasoned debate on any of these subjects within this present society.