They should televise this like Survivors, perhaps set in some real-world locale far removed from the Vatican.15 heads and leaders of the Catholic Church will compete for the coveted title of Pope. Every day the College of Cardinals will vote a contestant off.
THE POPE IS DEAD (good riddance)
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
-
General Brock
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: 2005-03-16 03:52pm
- Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
WHOA.General Brock wrote: Hmmm.
* I think he did his best to meet the job requirements, but I don't think he was a natural.
* Well, he wasn't that bad a Pope, and better the crazy lemmings follow him than someone who could misuse them or be driven batty by them.
* A. Its the Pope's job to cling to dogma, spin it, and sell it, not make things up. One thing I do respect the Pope for is that he didn't pretend Christianity and Catholicism were things they were not.
B. Sexual assaults are at best property crimes in the Bible. It may not be PC today, but no prophet said Thou shall not rape, or Thou shalt treat women as human beings first. This oversight might be being worked on even as we speak.
C. The Pope has limited means of taking a moral lead in Africa. I mean, the the wrath of god is directed at complex issues like that. What's he going to say, apart from a fancy diplomatic "Told you so!"
D. Wouldn't know. I don't bother with TV or radio much anymore. Sounds like the thought spinners are groping for a safe news story to hype up; Iraq, Schavio, and a lot of other issues are such hot buttons they probably need this filler. People were starting to think and act up a little to much and need to be put in their place.
Are you arguing that taking immoral stances is justified because that's what the job calls for?
Rape is wrong, sexism is wrong, and they should be denounced as such. Fuck that sick-ass piece of work that is the Bible, this is the 21st century and we are not slaves to stone-age moralism. That he's willing to let such things slide because of doctrine does not speak well to his morality.
-
Fire Fly
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: 2004-01-06 12:03am
- Location: Grand old Badger State
While he was slightly more liberal than his predecessors, that still doesn’t discount all of his misgivings when it comes to sexuality. But then again, pretty much everything that is wrong with the Church has to do with sexuality and the Pope was willing to back those issues.
-Pedophile priests were tucked away and never punished for their deeds. Not addressing the issue meant that the Church was willing to tolerate this so long as the public doesn’t hear about it. As I recall, all the Pope did was give them a verbal slap but no actions were actually taken to solve the problem or to punish the priests.
-Apparently, if you’re raped, you should raise the child, undergo all of the expenses that are necessary to deliver, and continue to relive the trauma because Mary didn’t have an abortion. I wonder how many of the religious zealots in the US would do that if they were raped by a black man. So many Catholics are so backwards in their thinking that it would take the actions of a black man to rape and sodomize them before they changed their positions.
-Homosexuality means that your soul will burn in the eternal fires of hell as the minion of Lucifer gnaw and torture you for the eternity of time. I guess that means half of the clergy will burn in hell also. Oh that’s right, if you’re a member of the clergy, you can do no wrong.
-As the Pope and the Church says, women will never, ever be true equals of men. Their job is to be silent, bear children, and be obedient. If God was so loving of all of his creatures, why can’t a women be allowed to preach the words of God, rather than have the job reserved exclusively for pedophile male priests?
The issues are so numerous and lengthy that is not worth repeating, since so many of them intertwine. And as a tangent, how can the Pope be God’s chosen man when he is chosen by a group of cardinals? Or is if after he is chosen by a group of cardinals that he then becomes God’s man on earth? Doesn’t make sense, but then again, most of religious doesn’t make sense.
The Pope has his moments, but they are rather few and far and most of them are only worth of mention. I think he was an okay guy but as an okay guy, he’s only worthy of a moment of silence and not all of this sudden praise and brouhaha. Princess Diana was more deserving than the Pope will ever be. At least she actively fought to do good while the Pope sat still with a Church strife with idleness.
-Pedophile priests were tucked away and never punished for their deeds. Not addressing the issue meant that the Church was willing to tolerate this so long as the public doesn’t hear about it. As I recall, all the Pope did was give them a verbal slap but no actions were actually taken to solve the problem or to punish the priests.
-Apparently, if you’re raped, you should raise the child, undergo all of the expenses that are necessary to deliver, and continue to relive the trauma because Mary didn’t have an abortion. I wonder how many of the religious zealots in the US would do that if they were raped by a black man. So many Catholics are so backwards in their thinking that it would take the actions of a black man to rape and sodomize them before they changed their positions.
-Homosexuality means that your soul will burn in the eternal fires of hell as the minion of Lucifer gnaw and torture you for the eternity of time. I guess that means half of the clergy will burn in hell also. Oh that’s right, if you’re a member of the clergy, you can do no wrong.
-As the Pope and the Church says, women will never, ever be true equals of men. Their job is to be silent, bear children, and be obedient. If God was so loving of all of his creatures, why can’t a women be allowed to preach the words of God, rather than have the job reserved exclusively for pedophile male priests?
The issues are so numerous and lengthy that is not worth repeating, since so many of them intertwine. And as a tangent, how can the Pope be God’s chosen man when he is chosen by a group of cardinals? Or is if after he is chosen by a group of cardinals that he then becomes God’s man on earth? Doesn’t make sense, but then again, most of religious doesn’t make sense.
The Pope has his moments, but they are rather few and far and most of them are only worth of mention. I think he was an okay guy but as an okay guy, he’s only worthy of a moment of silence and not all of this sudden praise and brouhaha. Princess Diana was more deserving than the Pope will ever be. At least she actively fought to do good while the Pope sat still with a Church strife with idleness.
Religious people can say what they want. On his watch, millions of people were doomed to a lingering death because the organisation he controlled had priorities other than 'save human life'. Spin it how you like - to the Catholic leadership, giving in on contraception was worse than killing millions of people. The Pope both represented and lead the Church, so on his head rests the responsibility.
-
General Brock
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: 2005-03-16 03:52pm
- Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
Petrosjko
Part of being religious is adherance to the tenets of the faith. If you go by the Old Testament, slavery and homophobia are not explicitly crimes either. There is confusion in the Church because [humanitarian] principle and doctrine are so tied together as to be one in the same, with the Word, the doctrine element, paramount. An injunction of sorts not to make to much of any discrepency exists, making things more confusing. Like a good soldier and lawyer, the top priest accepts standing orders and prosecutes doctrine as a matter of faith even when it contradicts principle.
Indeed, a cleverer and extremely charismatic Pope might have found loopholes in the Bible to lead the Church to stand against what we recognize clearly as crimes, as some of the more liberal lay Catholics and Protestants have. However, those are kind of shaky, based on a vacuous claims of an omnipotent all-loving all forgiving deity nowithstanding what is actually written in the Bible.
Unlike, say, English common law, there is no mechanism that has evolved to effect change and set new precidents in Catholicism. The Reformations were a shuffling and rewording of the same cue cards. Even a new prophet arising is out of the question, closed out by the Second Coming. The Biblical deck is set, stacked, and frozen from very dark times during the late bronze age and late iron age.
The Pope has to take on faith that a seemingly, [in our eyes definite] immoral stand will work out for the best, because god said so, part of the plan, and therefore it is not immoral since god will make it all better somehow. Consider the way a soldier in battle believes he is not murdering the enemy even when that enemy is not posing a direct threat, and perhaps not even a combatant, and that the sacrifices made are worthwhile. To a less biased observer, this might not be the case. The Catholic Church was modelled on the Roman army model, after all. The Church exists as a soul-conquering society of soldiers, whose territory is hearts and minds.
Taking immoral stances is not what the job of Pope calls for. It calls for taking stances that defend the Church's defintiton of what is moral. The Pope is unable to see that some of his stands are immoral, because he does not accept a different standard of morality, or is able to persuade himself that the some actions have only the illusion of immorality if they can be squared by the Bible and the demands of evangelism.
The Pope cannot responsibly take stances not clearly set out by the Bible; that would be immoral in accordance with his fundamental belief system, because to him the word of god trumps the law of man, and therefore humanitarian considerations. God has priority over man. It is not objectively justifiable, but the Church is not objective, and being religious is not an objective endeavor.Are you arguing that taking immoral stances is justified because that's what the job calls for?
Part of being religious is adherance to the tenets of the faith. If you go by the Old Testament, slavery and homophobia are not explicitly crimes either. There is confusion in the Church because [humanitarian] principle and doctrine are so tied together as to be one in the same, with the Word, the doctrine element, paramount. An injunction of sorts not to make to much of any discrepency exists, making things more confusing. Like a good soldier and lawyer, the top priest accepts standing orders and prosecutes doctrine as a matter of faith even when it contradicts principle.
Indeed, a cleverer and extremely charismatic Pope might have found loopholes in the Bible to lead the Church to stand against what we recognize clearly as crimes, as some of the more liberal lay Catholics and Protestants have. However, those are kind of shaky, based on a vacuous claims of an omnipotent all-loving all forgiving deity nowithstanding what is actually written in the Bible.
Unlike, say, English common law, there is no mechanism that has evolved to effect change and set new precidents in Catholicism. The Reformations were a shuffling and rewording of the same cue cards. Even a new prophet arising is out of the question, closed out by the Second Coming. The Biblical deck is set, stacked, and frozen from very dark times during the late bronze age and late iron age.
The Pope has to take on faith that a seemingly, [in our eyes definite] immoral stand will work out for the best, because god said so, part of the plan, and therefore it is not immoral since god will make it all better somehow. Consider the way a soldier in battle believes he is not murdering the enemy even when that enemy is not posing a direct threat, and perhaps not even a combatant, and that the sacrifices made are worthwhile. To a less biased observer, this might not be the case. The Catholic Church was modelled on the Roman army model, after all. The Church exists as a soul-conquering society of soldiers, whose territory is hearts and minds.
Taking immoral stances is not what the job of Pope calls for. It calls for taking stances that defend the Church's defintiton of what is moral. The Pope is unable to see that some of his stands are immoral, because he does not accept a different standard of morality, or is able to persuade himself that the some actions have only the illusion of immorality if they can be squared by the Bible and the demands of evangelism.
I started to parse your reply, but really my answer sums up to this- adherence to an objectively immoral system is immoral. Actively promulgating an objectively immoral system is immoral. The Pope condemned people who practice purely consensual, non-harmful sexual activity as evil, among other abhorrent stances that he took on social issues as well-listed in previous posts.General Brock wrote:Petrosjko
The Pope cannot responsibly take stances not clearly set out by the Bible; that would be immoral in accordance with his fundamental belief system, because to him the word of god trumps the law of man, and therefore humanitarian considerations. God has priority over man. It is not objectively justifiable, but the Church is not objective, and being religious is not an objective endeavor.Are you arguing that taking immoral stances is justified because that's what the job calls for?
Part of being religious is adherance to the tenets of the faith. If you go by the Old Testament, slavery and homophobia are not explicitly crimes either. There is confusion in the Church because [humanitarian] principle and doctrine are so tied together as to be one in the same, with the Word, the doctrine element, paramount. An injunction of sorts not to make to much of any discrepency exists, making things more confusing. Like a good soldier and lawyer, the top priest accepts standing orders and prosecutes doctrine as a matter of faith even when it contradicts principle.
Indeed, a cleverer and extremely charismatic Pope might have found loopholes in the Bible to lead the Church to stand against what we recognize clearly as crimes, as some of the more liberal lay Catholics and Protestants have. However, those are kind of shaky, based on a vacuous claims of an omnipotent all-loving all forgiving deity nowithstanding what is actually written in the Bible.
Unlike, say, English common law, there is no mechanism that has evolved to effect change and set new precidents in Catholicism. The Reformations were a shuffling and rewording of the same cue cards. Even a new prophet arising is out of the question, closed out by the Second Coming. The Biblical deck is set, stacked, and frozen from very dark times during the late bronze age and late iron age.
The Pope has to take on faith that a seemingly, [in our eyes definite] immoral stand will work out for the best, because god said so, part of the plan, and therefore it is not immoral since god will make it all better somehow. Consider the way a soldier in battle believes he is not murdering the enemy even when that enemy is not posing a direct threat, and perhaps not even a combatant, and that the sacrifices made are worthwhile. To a less biased observer, this might not be the case. The Catholic Church was modelled on the Roman army model, after all. The Church exists as a soul-conquering society of soldiers, whose territory is hearts and minds.
Taking immoral stances is not what the job of Pope calls for. It calls for taking stances that defend the Church's defintiton of what is moral. The Pope is unable to see that some of his stands are immoral, because he does not accept a different standard of morality, or is able to persuade himself that the some actions have only the illusion of immorality if they can be squared by the Bible and the demands of evangelism.
We can play shell games with the fact that his morality was different than mine all night long, but in the end the difference is this: my ethical beliefs are essentially utilitarian in nature- do the most good for the most people. It is a rational system that is the most current product of all the misery and suffering we've gone through on this rock in order to produce something resembling stable civilization.
On the other hand, Old Testament morality was designed to justify atrocity, explain disaster, and keep its adherents properly cowed into deference to the religious leadership. It's a sad and savage relic of older, more brutal times.
That it still forms a large portion of the moral teachings of the largest organized Christian denomination around is not something that should simply be accepted as a fact of life. It should be challenged, it should be derided, and eventually, it should be thrown into the museums and history books where it belongs.
That a man held fast to such barbaric principles is not something to be lauded at the end of his life. It is more properly treated as a flaw, and taken into the sum total of good and bad in his life to form a proper judgement of whether or not he truly improved the world by his presence.
Strip away the religious context for a moment, and what are you left with? Murderously retrograde attitudes, not mitigated by fact of the difficulty of implementation (in the case of contraception, which is an issue that extends beyond Africa to the entire global Catholic community), condemnation of innocent men and women who are simply following their sexuality, and a sickeningly misogynistic viewpoint that implicity reduces women to the status of property and brood mares. Honestly, if somebody created a secular charity combining those attitudes with a 'aid the impoverished' message, which of their messages do you think would get the most attention?
Now, tying that back to it being his religion, well, that doesn't provide any sort of rational justification for such behaviors. We rightfully throw out the 'I was just following orders' defense in military trials.
Did he work for the common good in places? Yeah, he did. That's why I'm not celebrating his death and pissing on his grave, as compared to the glass I hoisted to the demise of Yasser Arafat. But that does not absolve him of using his power in an ethically reprehensible fashion. He's dead, and the sooner his institution either evolves beyond its stone-age moral structure or perishes altogether, the better.
They can't leave the vatican: until some time ago, they were also locked in a room, and some centuries ago, they were also without food, to speed up the decision.General Brock wrote:Dworkin wrote:
They should televise this like Survivors, perhaps set in some real-world locale far removed from the Vatican.15 heads and leaders of the Catholic Church will compete for the coveted title of Pope. Every day the College of Cardinals will vote a contestant off.
-
mr friendly guy
- The Doctor
- Posts: 11235
- Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
- Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia
If his job requirements lead to immoral actions, why should they not be criticised?General Brock wrote:
Hmmm.
* I think he did his best to meet the job requirements, but I don't think he was a natural.
Nice false dilema. However how does the fact that he "wasn't that bad" change the fact that he is still was responsible for immoral acts and views.General Brock wrote: * Well, he wasn't that bad a Pope, and better the crazy lemmings follow him than someone who could misuse them or be driven batty by them.
So if a murderer or rapist don't pretend to be anything else you would respect them as well?General Brock wrote: * A. Its the Pope's job to cling to dogma, spin it, and sell it, not make things up. One thing I do respect the Pope for is that he didn't pretend Christianity and Catholicism were things they were not.
And before someone starts shouting OMG, you are comparing the Pope to a murderer, its a fricking analogy.
Appeal to authority, and an authority which can be objectively shown to be immoral at that.General Brock wrote: B. Sexual assaults are at best property crimes in the Bible. It may not be PC today, but no prophet said Thou shall not rape, or Thou shalt treat women as human beings first. This oversight might be being worked on even as we speak.
He could start by telling the Church to stop preaching the unscientific advice they give Africans about how condoms are bad and don't protect you from HIV.General Brock wrote: C. The Pope has limited means of taking a moral lead in Africa. I mean, the the wrath of god is directed at complex issues like that. What's he going to say, apart from a fancy diplomatic "Told you so!"
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
They are announcing that the Funeral which Bush will attend is this Friday. The only forunate thing is it's in Italy which is at 4:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. [feeling sorry for Europeans who have to watch this on most likely every single channel]
I'm so hoping that the entire funeral will not be re-broadcast during prime-time on Friday. And if they feel compelled to do so, [re-broadcast it] it will be during the day when I'm at work. <crossing my fingers>
I'm so hoping that the entire funeral will not be re-broadcast during prime-time on Friday. And if they feel compelled to do so, [re-broadcast it] it will be during the day when I'm at work. <crossing my fingers>
-
Montcalm
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7879
- Joined: 2003-01-15 10:50am
- Location: Montreal Canada North America
I'm sure they will rebroadcast it.Tommy J wrote:They are announcing that the Funeral which Bush will attend is this Friday. The only forunate thing is it's in Italy which is at 4:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. [feeling sorry for Europeans who have to watch this on most likely every single channel]
I'm so hoping that the entire funeral will not be re-broadcast during prime-time on Friday. And if they feel compelled to do so, [re-broadcast it] it will be during the day when I'm at work. <crossing my fingers>
Jerry Orbach 1935 2004
Admiral Valdemar~You know you've fucked up when Wacky Races has more realistic looking vehicles than your own.
-
Coyote
- Rabid Monkey
- Posts: 12464
- Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
- Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
- Contact:
Cpt. Cyran, thanks. That was funny as, well, hell.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!
If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!
If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
-
General Zod
- Never Shuts Up
- Posts: 29211
- Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
- Location: The Clearance Rack
- Contact:
slightly ot, but here's another link i stumbled onto earlier that some of the metal gear fans might find amusing. (yes, it's pope related. 
)
)"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
-
General Brock
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: 2005-03-16 03:52pm
- Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
mr friendly guy wrote, Petrosjko wrote [snip]
Hmmm. Warning: Another long post, as I try and sort out my thoughts.
People make bad decisions and tie themselves to bad systems. It is useful to understand why morally irrational stands are made and allowed to stand. I don't see JP II as some infallible superhuman, and I don't think he saw himself as such either. I never argued he was above criticism, or not responsible for his actions as Pope. If anything, he went out of his way to be approachable to ordinary people.
If he wanted to remain Pope, it was inevitable that he would find himself at odds with modern morality. It would have been nice if he either resigned or openly defied the scriptures in favour of more popular, more utilitarian moral stands, but that is not realistic.
It is not a false dilemma to suggest the Pope had to be careful about how he went about his job. Confused and angry lemmings have been known to engage in extreme bloodshed and violence. JP II refained from declaring crusades and bulls, inciting extremist religious strife, and refused to let the Bush and co. use the 'Just War (tm)' for their Iraq adventure.
As Pope, JP II seemed more determined to do honest good, such as his not-entirely-successful attempts to apologize to the Jews over WW II, and the peoples who suffered and continue to suffer from coercive evangelism. He was not the sort of naturally conniving politician or ignorant demagogue I would have expected from Popes past, nor was he a liberal token of a figurehead. He tried to maximize the good that could be done through the Church, and surprise, surprise, the Church was found wanting.
Oh, yes, as a matter of fact I would respect a murderer and rapist who was honest and open about it, more so than one who connives and lies and tries to get away with it, or worse, does. It is much easier to deal with open problems and deal them justice, whether rehab or life imprisonment [Canada does not have capital punishment]. It would not be the same positive quality of respect I have for good people, but it's there.
The Pope may be wrong about how to deal with AIDS in Africa, but the Church has a clear policy against contraception and pre/extra marital sex, and following it greatly improves the chances of avoiding an STD or complications from a flawed contraceptive. It is scientifically sound, even if it is ignorant and unrealistic. I never said the Catholic Church was an instrument of reason and utilitarian good.
Regardless of what the Pope says, there are people in NA who are not even religious that find reasons not to use condoms and be promicuous - even when they know they are not only at risk but an STD carrier. The Pope is hardly going to tell the Africans what to do if they do not want to do it, I am not going to blame him entirely for that. People in secular authority have tired to hide and excuse pedophilia as well. Why would I expect the Church to be any different than, say, the early secular school boards?
I still think Karol Wojtyla was an honest man who stood by his beliefs, tried to make them work for the best, and I respect him for that. He did take stands that were immoral, he also took some that were noble, and he made a lot of mistakes. People now have a clearer idea of what the Catholic Church is, what it is capable of, its failings, and a few more may question the limitations of religious faith because of this man's inabilty to misrepresent Catholicism.
Hmmm. Warning: Another long post, as I try and sort out my thoughts.
People make bad decisions and tie themselves to bad systems. It is useful to understand why morally irrational stands are made and allowed to stand. I don't see JP II as some infallible superhuman, and I don't think he saw himself as such either. I never argued he was above criticism, or not responsible for his actions as Pope. If anything, he went out of his way to be approachable to ordinary people.
If he wanted to remain Pope, it was inevitable that he would find himself at odds with modern morality. It would have been nice if he either resigned or openly defied the scriptures in favour of more popular, more utilitarian moral stands, but that is not realistic.
It is not a false dilemma to suggest the Pope had to be careful about how he went about his job. Confused and angry lemmings have been known to engage in extreme bloodshed and violence. JP II refained from declaring crusades and bulls, inciting extremist religious strife, and refused to let the Bush and co. use the 'Just War (tm)' for their Iraq adventure.
As Pope, JP II seemed more determined to do honest good, such as his not-entirely-successful attempts to apologize to the Jews over WW II, and the peoples who suffered and continue to suffer from coercive evangelism. He was not the sort of naturally conniving politician or ignorant demagogue I would have expected from Popes past, nor was he a liberal token of a figurehead. He tried to maximize the good that could be done through the Church, and surprise, surprise, the Church was found wanting.
Oh, yes, as a matter of fact I would respect a murderer and rapist who was honest and open about it, more so than one who connives and lies and tries to get away with it, or worse, does. It is much easier to deal with open problems and deal them justice, whether rehab or life imprisonment [Canada does not have capital punishment]. It would not be the same positive quality of respect I have for good people, but it's there.
The Pope may be wrong about how to deal with AIDS in Africa, but the Church has a clear policy against contraception and pre/extra marital sex, and following it greatly improves the chances of avoiding an STD or complications from a flawed contraceptive. It is scientifically sound, even if it is ignorant and unrealistic. I never said the Catholic Church was an instrument of reason and utilitarian good.
Regardless of what the Pope says, there are people in NA who are not even religious that find reasons not to use condoms and be promicuous - even when they know they are not only at risk but an STD carrier. The Pope is hardly going to tell the Africans what to do if they do not want to do it, I am not going to blame him entirely for that. People in secular authority have tired to hide and excuse pedophilia as well. Why would I expect the Church to be any different than, say, the early secular school boards?
I still think Karol Wojtyla was an honest man who stood by his beliefs, tried to make them work for the best, and I respect him for that. He did take stands that were immoral, he also took some that were noble, and he made a lot of mistakes. People now have a clearer idea of what the Catholic Church is, what it is capable of, its failings, and a few more may question the limitations of religious faith because of this man's inabilty to misrepresent Catholicism.
But. But. But.
He was a Hip Pope! He met with Bono! Bono praised him to be a dedicated and musical genius! He had Jewel, Eurythemics and so on perform at concerts in the Vatican for debt relief and aid! He had ...............
That came up on the radio today BTW.
He was a Hip Pope! He met with Bono! Bono praised him to be a dedicated and musical genius! He had Jewel, Eurythemics and so on perform at concerts in the Vatican for debt relief and aid! He had ...............
That came up on the radio today BTW.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
-
Pablo Sanchez
- Commissar
- Posts: 6998
- Joined: 2002-07-03 05:41pm
- Location: The Wasteland
There was an editorial in the NY Times today criticizing the Pope for being reactionary. Though it was primarily critical because he supposedly depressed church attendance in the United States, it made some good arguments and some of the anti-Pope people might want to see it.
Some of the things it talked about I wasn't quite aware of, so I'll have to reverse what I said earlier about the pope not being reactionary
Some of the things it talked about I wasn't quite aware of, so I'll have to reverse what I said earlier about the pope not being reactionary
"I am gravely disappointed. Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war."
--The Lord Humungus
-
Slartibartfast
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 6730
- Joined: 2002-09-10 05:35pm
- Location: Where The Sea Meets The Sky
- Contact:
One of the important local channels critiziced the hell of the Pope, the journalist, Mr. Hildebrant, mentioned every single critic about the Pope that's ever been mentioned in this site, and several more. AIDS, the child abuses, the "women can't be priests" thing, every single retrograde thing he did, etc. Took him about 15 minutes just to ennumerate them all.
I think it's a fairly brave thing to do, right after his death and all, specially with all the "Pope changed my life" sentiment that's going on around here. Also the national official religion is Catholicism AFAIK. But Hildebrant is just the coolest TV personality of them all
I think it's a fairly brave thing to do, right after his death and all, specially with all the "Pope changed my life" sentiment that's going on around here. Also the national official religion is Catholicism AFAIK. But Hildebrant is just the coolest TV personality of them all
-
Coyote
- Rabid Monkey
- Posts: 12464
- Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
- Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
- Contact:
Pablo Sanchez wrote:... the anti-Pope ...
That sounds wicked sinister. Like a guy dressed all in black with green glowing eyes that haunts streets in Avignon. And instead of a scepter, he has, I dunno, a headsman's axe.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!
If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!
If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
-
Patrick Degan
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 14847
- Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
- Location: Orleanian in exile
When it came to Liberation Theology, John-Paul moved swiftly to condemn it, then to retire or remove priests and bishops in Latin America who were part of or in sympathy with that movement. So don't try to say he couldn't have done the same thing in regards to pedophile priests in the United States.General Brock wrote:People in secular authority have tired to hide and excuse pedophilia as well. Why would I expect the Church to be any different than, say, the early secular school boards?
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
-
Slartibartfast
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 6730
- Joined: 2002-09-10 05:35pm
- Location: Where The Sea Meets The Sky
- Contact:
Actually, he's one of the favorites. And he's an asshole. He once talked shit about gays and was forced to issue a public retraction. Also when he was ordered Cardinal there was a massive protest in front of the government palace.Knife wrote:Tripple bullshit. The next pope is going to be some unheard of Father that has spent 30 years with the poor in Peru? Doubtful. The College of Cardinal's will vote for some 'old boy'. It's tradition.