The Chase for The Papacy begins!!!!!

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

The Chase for the Papacy begins today, Within the next few days a new pope will emerge the victor of this battle royale! Ratzinger, I think will take the cup this conclave. He's been pretty consistent the past few weeks, specially with a great finish at the papal funeral.

[Celeval]

$100 on (Field)

[Passacaglia]

I'm more curious about which wacky name the new Pope will choose for himself.

[Fonzie]

I'm more curious about which wacky name the new Pope will choose for himself.

I'm rooting for the twist on the traditional name: something like "John Paul Ringo George" would be nice.

[terpkristin]

If Ratzinger becomes the next pope, I may seriously consider finding a new religion. I understand why the church is conservative (though my home church is one of the most liberal churches in one of the most liberal diosceses), but Ratzinger becoming pope would pull it even farther to the right, and I'm not ready to believe that's in the best interests for the church...

/tk

[sovereignstar]

I think they should put this shit on UPN and have Tyra Banks and a couple of gay guys pick the next pope.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I hope who ever is the next pope that he will be fair and balanced. He does seem a bit ight wing but there's a chance someone else can be pope.

[st.cronin]

I would suggest that instead of another right winger that the cardinals think about a solid blueliner, or even a young goalie prospect.

[Celeval]

I'm praying for someone with some of what John Paul had in terms of the ability to be a uniter instead of a divider, to borrow a rather corny phrase to begin with. For someone who has only known one pope, everything I've read about JP2 implies that one of his biggest legacies will be the improved relationships between Catholicism and the other major religions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

While I don't really have a dog in this fight, I sure found myself somebody to root for after seeing this in today's headlines.


Ratzinger ticked off the threats facing the church and the next pontiff: sects and ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism and agnosticism, collectivism, and what he called "radical individualism" and "vague religious mysticism."

He also singled out relativism - the ideology that there are no absolute truths.

"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism," he said. "Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards.

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires," he told cardinals, bishops and others gathered in St. Peter's Basilica for the solemn Mass before the conclave.

[st.cronin]

Relativism is one of the worst ideas ever, just a total perversion of philosophy.

[Marmel]

Is Ratzinger the former Nazi? Or is that a different candidate?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is Ratzinger the former Nazi? Or is that a different candidate?

According to his biography ...
As a seminarian, he was briefly enrolled in the Hitler Youth in the early 1940s, though he was never a member of the Nazi party. In 1943 he was conscripted into an antiaircraft unit guarding a BMW plant outside Munich. Later Ratzinger was sent to Austria's border with Hungary to erect tank traps. After being shipped back to Bavaria, he deserted. When the war ended, he was an American prisoner of war.

[Marmel]

According to his biography ...
As a seminarian, he was briefly enrolled in the Hitler Youth in the early 1940s, though he was never a member of the Nazi party. In 1943 he was conscripted into an antiaircraft unit guarding a BMW plant outside Munich. Later Ratzinger was sent to Austria's border with Hungary to erect tank traps. After being shipped back to Bavaria, he deserted. When the war ended, he was an American prisoner of war.

I heard he guarded a concentration camp. :confused:

[terpkristin]

My biggest problem with Ratzinger is his "politics" and because of those, I view him as a divider, not a uniter. The church needs a uniter. The prime example of this I've been telling people is the entire mess of when the girl was allergic to wheat gluten and the church wanted to give her a rice wafter instead, he emphatically said that was not allowed and thus this girl cannot receive Holy Communion. Now my take on the ordeal is that this is a symbolic event, and if there is a demonstrated need, this girl should be allowed to have a rice wafer. Would Jesus have not allowed somebody to follow him because he or she couldn't eat wheat gluten? Of course not. Thus Christ's representative on Earth should not say different. But of course Ratzinger...

There is a litany of other things about him that bug me, but this is the easiest case to describe. Then again, I'm a liberal Catholic. So I'm sure there are others out there who will disagree with me.

/tk

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Are there any info on if he saw action or not? Any medals he earned/ battles he fought in? I think it's dafe to say he is the 2nd and last WW2 Vet to be a pope.

[Tigercat]

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires," he told cardinals, bishops and others gathered in St. Peter's Basilica for the solemn Mass before the conclave.[/i]

One problem there Razy, True faith must be fully accepted with as much complete knowledge of the alternatives as possible. Its the deal we got, in the Christian faith, when we opened our eyes in orginal sin in Eden. Blind faith may be the only true way of having faith, but accepting faith blindly is often no way of accepting faith at all. Thats often going on just desire by itself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

One problem there Razy, True faith must be fully accepted with as much complete knowledge of the alternatives as possible. Its the deal we got, in the Christian faith, when we opened our eyes in orginal sin in Eden. Blind faith may be the only true way of having faith, but accepting faith blindly is often no way of accepting faith at all. Thats often going on just desire by itself.

Now maybe it just isn't in the quote & that's from something else he said, but I don't see anything in the snippet that prevents examination & study, only that you either "is or you ain't" when it comes right down to it.

[riz]

I would suggest that instead of another right winger that the cardinals think about a solid blueliner, or even a young goalie prospect.

Hmm...have you been playing EHM lately ? :D

[st.cronin]

Hmm...have you been playing EHM lately ? :D

Guilty as charged!

[Tigercat]

Now maybe it just isn't in the quote & that's from something else he said, but I don't see anything in the snippet that prevents examination & study, only that you either "is or you ain't" when it comes right down to it.

Its a little bit of his quotes there and a little bit of his quotes in general. What I liked about JPII is that he realized that the journey to faith, and faith in line with that of the Catholic Church specifically, is going to be different for different people. That there is a difference between how one can/must accept faith and the actuality of having faith. Its why, even though he understandably was stubborn to the ways of the church, JPII was understanding of ways of learning and exploring religion and spirituality. I don't see that openness of learning and exploring religion and sprituality with Ratzinger. And addressing his specific quote, he should and must realize that many people who attend religious services and strictly adhere to religious teachings don't have real and full faith in their religion. Many do, but many don't. And relativism, as with all mindsets that can lead to learning, can play a role in finding that true faith. For example, the Catholic in me would rather someone without true faith who blindly follows catholic teachings without spiritual reason or true faith break those bonds, and become more open, and then maybe find true faith through exploration. It doesn't seem like to me that Ratzi is too open to that sort of thing, which is a shame. Again I just think JPII was great because he understood that not all spiritual journeys could or would take place hand in hand with the church or its establishments.

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

I laugh at all the Conservative or Liberal talk. Lets just hope he is "Catholic". American Catholics think their agenda's of woman priests or a married priest hood are going to change. Heres a newsflash, we will never see woman priests as this Tradition (capital T) was instituted by Christ himself. As far as the priest shortage, vocations in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe are flourishing. 50-100 years ago we were sending priests to serve these areas along with Ireland and other western European countries. Now the opposite is happening. Look at our country where we have an orthodox bishop, these dioceses and seminaries a great list of seminarians. Then look at the dioceses, bishops and seminaries that have fallen into the heresy of modernism. You will see seminaries that are closed our very few potential priests. So the shortage is not due to celibacy, as with the scandals, it is due to teaching truth.

I have my own personal hopes for the next Holy Father but like all other Catholics who truly embrace all of the Churches Teachings, we can only pray that our Cardinals ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and do Gods Will not their own.

As for the people threaten to leave because of a Cardinal like Ratzinger becoming the next pontiff, I think the term Cafeteria Catholic fits you pretty well and I am sure the Lutherans and Anglicans would love to have you. We of course would all pray that you come back one day and embrace the Fullness of the Church.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I laugh at all the Conservative or Liberal talk. Lets just hope he is "Catholic". American Catholics think their agenda's of woman priests or a married priest hood are going to change. Heres a newsflash, we will never see woman priests as this Tradition (capital T) was instituted by Christ himself. As far as the priest shortage, vocations in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe are flourishing. 50-100 years ago we were sending priests to serve these areas along with Ireland and other western European countries. Now the opposite is happening. Look at our country where we have an orthodox bishop, these dioceses and seminaries a great list of seminarians. Then look at the dioceses, bishops and seminaries that have fallen into the heresy of modernism. You will see seminaries that are closed our very few potential priests. So the shortage is not due to celibacy, as with the scandals, it is due to teaching truth.

I have my own personal hopes for the next Holy Father but like all other Catholics who truly embrace all of the Churches Teachings, we can only pray that our Cardinals ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and do Gods Will not their own.

As for the people threaten to leave because of a Cardinal like Ratzinger becoming the next pontiff, I think the term Cafeteria Catholic fits you pretty well and I am sure the Lutherans and Anglicans would love to have you. We of course would all pray that you come back one day and embrace the Fullness of the Church.
Amen Brother.

[albionmoonlight]

I laugh at all the Conservative or Liberal talk. Lets just hope he is "Catholic". American Catholics think their agenda's of woman priests or a married priest hood are going to change. Heres a newsflash, we will never see woman priests as this Tradition (capital T) was instituted by Christ himself. As far as the priest shortage, vocations in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe are flourishing. 50-100 years ago we were sending priests to serve these areas along with Ireland and other western European countries. Now the opposite is happening. Look at our country where we have an orthodox bishop, these dioceses and seminaries a great list of seminarians. Then look at the dioceses, bishops and seminaries that have fallen into the heresy of modernism. You will see seminaries that are closed our very few potential priests. So the shortage is not due to celibacy, as with the scandals, it is due to teaching truth.

I have my own personal hopes for the next Holy Father but like all other Catholics who truly embrace all of the Churches Teachings, we can only pray that our Cardinals ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and do Gods Will not their own.

As for the people threaten to leave because of a Cardinal like Ratzinger becoming the next pontiff, I think the term Cafeteria Catholic fits you pretty well and I am sure the Lutherans and Anglicans would love to have you. We of course would all pray that you come back one day and embrace the Fullness of the Church.
I agree with some to most of this. It is important to remember, though, that we must always be on guard against strict adherence to the Church at the expense of following the way of God as shown to us by Christ. The figure at the head of our Church is, frankly, kind of an annoying one to have from the perspective of Church leadership. His rejection of the Sadducees and Pharisees indicates that simply following the rules and traditions established by the Church heirarchy is not only not good enough--it's downright wrong. We must always be on watch for falling into the easy trap that it is enough to follow Church teaching. Christ seems to demand more than that.

I am not advocating, of course, turning over the money changing tables at the Vatican every time the Church takes a position with which you disagree. God demands many things of us, and, personally, I don't think that one can run away from those things by changing religion every time a new challenge arises. I am, however, advocating the idea that if the Church is actually serious about following Christ, it must be willing to listen to the Holy Spirit and be willing to follow that Spirit--even if it means rejecting Rules and Tradition that are incompatable with that Spirit.

(And, in all this debate about homosexuality and gender issues, no one seems to address what I consider to be the aspect of the Church that I would change in a heartbeat. Jesus gave of himself to all mankind. And we decide that only people who beleive what we beleive can take the Eucharist? Wow. If anything causes me to ever leave the Church, that will be it. Dudes kissing is like dust in the wind. The salvation of all mankind? That's a shade more intense.)

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

I agree with some to most of this. It is important to remember, though, that we must always be on guard against strict adherence to the Church at the expense of following the way of God as shown to us by Christ. The figure at the head of our Church is, frankly, kind of an annoying one to have from the perspective of Church leadership. His rejection of the Sadducees and Pharisees indicates that simply following the rules and traditions established by the Church heirarchy is not only not good enough--it's downright wrong. We must always be on watch for falling into the easy trap that it is enough to follow Church teaching. Christ seems to demand more than that.

Christ rejected the sadducees and pharisees due to their doctrine. The Church teaches the doctrine of the New Covenant , the Doctrine of Christ.
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" . That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings , even if individual Catholics might.

As to Church teaching on homosexuals . The Church does not teach that if you have same sex attractions you cant receive the Eucharist. That is untrue . What the Church teaches is that anyone who is in a state of mortal sin can not receive . So if a hetrosexual male is living and having sex with his female girlfriend, he is in the same boat as a gay man doing the same with his male boyfriend. Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law same as hetrosexuals who are not open to the option of life in regards to abortion and contraception.

[albionmoonlight]

1 quick correction. You misread my parenthetical. The Church says that only baptized Catholics (and some Orthodox) can receive the Eucharist. That's what I have a problem with. Christ gave of himself to all mankind. It's not up to us to limit that. The point about homosexuality had nothing to do with that. I should have been more clear.

[finkenst]

My biggest problem with Ratzinger is his "politics" and because of those, I view him as a divider, not a uniter. The church needs a uniter. The prime example of this I've been telling people is the entire mess of when the girl was allergic to wheat gluten and the church wanted to give her a rice wafter instead, he emphatically said that was not allowed and thus this girl cannot receive Holy Communion. Now my take on the ordeal is that this is a symbolic event, and if there is a demonstrated need, this girl should be allowed to have a rice wafer. Would Jesus have not allowed somebody to follow him because he or she couldn't eat wheat gluten? Of course not. Thus Christ's representative on Earth should not say different. But of course Ratzinger...

There is a litany of other things about him that bug me, but this is the easiest case to describe. Then again, I'm a liberal Catholic. So I'm sure there are others out there who will disagree with me.

/tk aha.. I remember that story as well ... side-bar: Ratzinger violated the church's own teaching if he said the girl cannot receive valid communion with Christ by the wine only /side-bar ... and while i was looking up some other catholic stuff ran across some references:


The bishops recognize that Communion under both species is not always possible or desirable. Communion under both species is only allowed when “the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason” (GIRM, no. 283, as cited in Norms, no. 24). In additions, the norms point out that the bishop or pastor may limit the distribution of Communion under both species in order to “avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion” (Norms, no. 24).

The Church teaches that a person who receives under either species has received the entire Christ—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The Church also teaches that the decision to receive under both species belongs to the individual communicant, and not the minister (Norms, no. 46, GIRM, no. 284). However, the practice of receiving under both species is warmly encouraged, and reverence should be shown to the Holy Eucharist under both species.
or


Christ Himself Is Present in the Eucharistic Species


8. Christ is "truly, really, and substantially contained"⁽¹⁸⁾ (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml#N_18_) in Holy Communion. His presence is not momentary nor simply signified, but wholly and permanently real under each of the consecrated species of bread and wine.⁽¹⁹⁾ (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml#N_19_)

9. The Council of Trent teaches that "the true body and blood of our Lord, together with his soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine. His body exists under the species of bread and his blood under the species of wine, according to the import of his words."⁽²⁰⁾ (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml#N_20_)

10. The Church also teaches and believes that "immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and his true blood exist along with his soul and divinity under the form of bread and wine. The body is present under the form of bread and the blood under the form of wine, by virtue of the words [of Christ]. The same body, however, is under the form of wine and the blood under the form of bread, and the soul under either form, by virtue of the natural link and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead and will die no more, are mutually united."⁽²¹⁾ (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml#N_21_)

11. Since, however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church.
So apparently if you receive only the Precious Blood that you have made a valid Sacrament.

With respect to the rice wafer instead of the wheat, it is also spelled out that the host shall be of wheat.

Here we go with a reference:


And, a host without some amount of gluten present is not considered valid matter for the eucharist.
and

It is possible that those with this disorder may still not agree that receiving this host would be a safe practice for them. It always remains possible for them to receive only from the cup. Our theology teaches us that we receive in one element of the Eucharist what we receive wholly and completely in the other. In either species of the Eucharist we receive the whole Christ, in his Body and Blood, soul and divinity. As a further precaution it might be advisable to set aside a cup for the exclusive use of those with celiac disease so that there is a diminished chance of contamination with gluten from others who receive both the host and from the cup. Other practical liturgical issues will need to be attended to when permission is received. It is not possible to address those concerns here; rather when permission is received guidelines will be sent on how best to handle the situation.

The use of low-gluten hosts and the use of mustum are restricted to individuals who have a medical need and have been granted permission to use them. Furthermore, the use of mustum is reserved to those who are incapable of receiving a host and cannot receive alcohol. Therefore, the use of low-gluten hosts and mustum by individuals without permission is not allowed. So the rice-host was an invalid material for the Eucharist.

Now, all you non-catholics know far more than you probably wanted to. :)

I love the internet.


--tf

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

1 quick correction. You misread my parenthetical. The Church says that only baptized Catholics (and some Orthodox) can receive the Eucharist. That's what I have a problem with. Christ gave of himself to all mankind. It's not up to us to limit that. The point about homosexuality had nothing to do with that. I should have been more clear.

Ok, understand now.

I will take it that you are not Catholic. Partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1st Corinth. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.
Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30).

Dont want to start a scripture quoting battle, but in regards to the Eucharist and it being the foundation of Our faith, I want to make clear that the Church does not exclude anyone. But rather calls all to the fullness of the Faith and to its Sacraments.

Thanks Albion for the freindly trade of thoughts. It is easy to get off the track and defensive.

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

Ratzinger violated the church's own teaching if he said the girl cannot receive valid communion with Christ by the wine

Where did Cardinal Ratzinger say this?

[finkenst]

1 quick correction. You misread my parenthetical. The Church says that only baptized Catholics (and some Orthodox) can receive the Eucharist. That's what I have a problem with. Christ gave of himself to all mankind. It's not up to us to limit that. The point about homosexuality had nothing to do with that. I should have been more clear.
This isn't quite correct.

As I understand it (as a cradle Catholic), any Christian baptism is valid to the (Roman) Catholic Church. Baptist, Methodist, etc, are all good.

It goes with what the Hip said...

I like this discussion.

[finkenst]

Where did Cardinal Ratzinger say this?
I'm going by terpkristin's post.

i thought someone said that the wine alone was not a valid commission of the sacrament of communion.

[Izulde]

I'm hoping Arinze is elected the next Pope myself.

Ratzinger I don't think will be elected. He seems more the power behind the mitre type.

[finkenst]

i must be on drugs or something... or it has been 5 months..

The diocese has told Haley’s mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten wafer, or just drink wine at Communion, but that anything without gluten does not qualify. Pelly-Waldman rejected the offer, saying her child could be harmed by even a small amount of the substance.

[Celeval]

As I understand it (as a cradle Catholic), any Christian baptism is valid to the (Roman) Catholic Church. Baptist, Methodist, etc, are all good.
Right - someone originally baptized in a Christian yet non-Catholic denomination does not have to be 're-baptized' in Catholicism in order to go through the various rites and receive First Holy Communion.

[finkenst]

Right - someone originally baptized in a Christian yet non-Catholic denomination does not have to be 're-baptized' in Catholicism in order to go through the various rites and receive First Holy Communion.
yeah... as I understand it, for adults to come to the church, if they are baptized "only" receive the sacraments of Confirmation and Communion...

Now, having said that, the catechumens also renew their baptismal vows during the Easter Vigil, as does everyone else.

[Celeval]

I laugh at all the Conservative or Liberal talk. Lets just hope he is "Catholic". American Catholics think their agenda's of woman priests or a married priest hood are going to change. Heres a newsflash, we will never see woman priests as this Tradition (capital T) was instituted by Christ himself.
Perhaps. But conservative and liberal doesn't necessarily apply only to long-standing institutions such as those two. JP2 was very liberal in some senses in the way that he brought the teachings of the Church worldwide more than possibly any pope other than the one (name escapes me) who instituted Vatican II - simply by his travel and his attitude and relationship with other denominations and religions. Still Catholic, still liberal - these are not necessarily at odds.

[finkenst]

Perhaps. But conservative and liberal doesn't necessarily apply only to long-standing institutions such as those two. JP2 was very liberal in some senses in the way that he brought the teachings of the Church worldwide more than possibly any pope other than the one (name escapes me) who instituted Vatican II - simply by his travel and his attitude and relationship with other denominations and religions. Still Catholic, still liberal - these are not necessarily at odds.
Pope John XXIII started the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI continued it after John XXIII's death.

[Raven Hawk]

One point to be made is that this is not just a Catholic thing. The Pope is the leader of Christianity throughout the world. There are many protestants that are hanging on the edge of their seats waiting to see who is elected Pope, as well. Regardless of your denomination, if you're Christian, you've got something at stake here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The Pope is the leader of Christianity throughout the world.

Umm ... huh?

I find it interesting in a 3rd party observer sense, but that's about it. I respect the late Pope a great deal for his commitment to his beliefs, his refusal to play the whole PC game with his spirituality, and even for some of his political influence. But as a "leader of Christianity"? Sorry, he doesn't even register on my scale at all.

[finkenst]

One point to be made is that this is not just a Catholic thing. The Pope is the leader of Christianity throughout the world. There are many protestants that are hanging on the edge of their seats waiting to see who is elected Pope, as well. Regardless of your denomination, if you're Christian, you've got something at stake here.
I think i agree with just your lst sentence.

I'm sure that the Patriarch of Constantinople would be surprised to hear this. The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. The Pope may be the most well-known Christian in the world, for what that's worth.

[Raven Hawk]

Umm ... huh?

I find it interesting in a 3rd party observer sense, but that's about it. I respect the late Pope a great deal for his commitment to his beliefs, his refusal to play the whole PC game with his spirituality, and even for some of his political influence. But as a "leader of Christianity"? Sorry, he doesn't even register on my scale at all.
Not one other sect of Christianity has a figure as influential as the Pope. Perhaps "leader" was the wrong term to use, since the other denominations don't "follow" him. My point is more that when the rest of the world religions look at Christianity, they see the pope as the figurehead. Therefore, like it or not, the Pope has a bearing on the lives of all Christians.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... when the rest of the world religions look at Christianity, they see the pope as the figurehead.

Okay, that works for me, or at the very worst, it doesn't bother me.

[Ben E Lou]

Are all of the discussions at the conclave in Latin, or are there translators present?

[Ben E Lou]

Radio just cut in. White smoke?

[Ben E Lou]

ROFLMBAO!!!!!

From MSNBC....

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050418/stg_hz_smoke_cvr_11a.v2.jpg (javascript:oMvsLink('00','e2ab43a7-2a6c-4ba9-a9c2-6dbfe7b95b7f','','','','','',false,false,'News_Other')) MSNBC TV
Smoke cam:
Free live video
Click here to watch (javascript:oMvsLink('00','e2ab43a7-2a6c-4ba9-a9c2-6dbfe7b95b7f','','','','','',false,false,'News_Other'))
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/News/International/INTOBIT/FreeVideo.jpg (javascript:oMvsLink('00','e2ab43a7-2a6c-4ba9-a9c2-6dbfe7b95b7f','','','','','',false,false,'News_Other'))





Smoke cam???????

[terpkristin]

They got white smoke?!?
Black smoke signifies that they voted and could not reach the proper amount of votes to elect a new pope.

White smoke means that there is a new pope.

They burn the ballots after each vote, and add an additive indicates the color. It's how the world first finds that there is a pope (or not).

/tk

[Ben E Lou]

They got white smoke?!?
Black smoke signifies that they voted and could not reach the proper amount of votes to elect a new pope.

White smoke means that there is a new pope.

They burn the ballots after each vote, and add an additive indicates the color. It's how the world first finds that there is a pope (or not).

/tkRight, but there's some confusion as to whether this is initial smoke that will turn black, or real white smoke. Of course it is white smoke. Remember it well when they cut into NFL games for John Paul I and John Paul II.

[terpkristin]

We have a new Pope.
The bell is tolling.
The smoke was indeed white.

/tk

[Ben E Lou]

Yup. Smokecam is showing 'em rockin' the bells. (with apologies to LL...)

[sooner333]

as Fox News has at the bottom of the screen "We Have A Pope!"

[terpkristin]

Right, but there's some confusion as to whether this is initial smoke that will turn black, or real white smoke. Of course it is white smoke. Remember it well when they cut into NFL games for John Paul I and John Paul II.
I don't at all remember that (but then, I am a youngerin).

/tk

[Bee]

I read an article in the paper this morning that said the longer this goes on, the less likely it is for Ratzinger to get it. The article said the problem with being the early front runner is if you don't get the votes early, the cardinals will move on to someone else (at least historically that's what has happened).

[Ben E Lou]

as Fox News has at the bottom of the screen "We Have A Pope!"According to the announcer on SmokeCam, "We have a Pope" is the exact wording of the announcement that will be made.

[sooner333]

According to the announcer on SmokeCam, "We have a Pope" is the exact wording of the announcement that will be made.

Yeah, Fox News just said that too, except that, of course, they'll say it in Latin.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't at all remember that (but then, I am a youngerin).

/tkPope Paul 6th died...I think on a Sunday. John Paul I took over, but then died like a month later, then John Paul II took over. Two of those three events were on Sunday afternoons, Eastern time. I was 9 or 10 years old at the time, and remember being really hacked off because I had to miss NFL games twice. :p

[terpkristin]

habemas papam is the Latin you will hear.

/tk

[terpkristin]

Ratzinger.
SHIT.

/tk

[st.cronin]

Ratzinger.
SHIT.

/tk

Lutheran churches are quite nice...

[Ben E Lou]

Pope Benedict 16.

[Qwikshot]

Ratzinger.
SHIT.

/tk

You know, it sounds like a name given to a villain.

"Curses, Ratzinger!!!"

Then I was getting him mixed up with Cliffy from Cheers...

[cartman]

Pope Benedict the 16th

edit: d'oh, a Protestant beat me to it :)

[SirFozzie]

Well, may he gain wisdom and grow into the role.

Me, I'm not happy about it, but if it is God's will, then it is.

[henry296]

Very suprised with it being Ratzinger that he didn't go with Pope John Paul III

[gottimd]

Ratzinger was 11 to 2 odds and the favorite according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/18/pope.betting/)

[cartman]

Lutheran churches are quite nice...

The new pope is German. As was Martin Luther... Maybe a new "Reformation"?

Nah.

[gottimd]

How/Why do they choose the name to take?

[cartman]

How/Why do they choose the name to take?

It's a personal choice. Interesting he chose Benedict XVI, since, if my memory serves me right, the previous Benedict was one of the shortest reigning popes. Since he's 78, maybe he was trying to convey that he didn't plan to be pope for a long time.

[terpkristin]

Benedict XV was Pope for 8 years. He died young, though, at 68. This was also in the mid-1800's, and times have certainly changed since then.

Personally I can't hear "Benedict" without thinking "Benedict Arnold," as evil as that sounds.

I think the choice of an old guy in Ratzinger and his choice of name suggest that the College of Cardinals is really considering him an "interim" Pope. Time will tell, I suppose.

/tk

[CamEdwards]

Ratzinger.
SHIT.

/tk

countdown to lightning strike in 3...2...

[gottimd]

Then I was getting him mixed up with Cliffy from Cheers...

http://www.enzogiobbe.com/celebs/John_Ratzenberger.jpg
You rang?

Everytime I hear the name it too reminds me of Cliff.

[cartman]

That was strange, that last song they played before he went back inside was the Italian national anthem.

[DaddyTorgo]

Ratzinger...bah. just what we need, a nice right-wing conservative pope to go with our right-wing conservative president. Not that I'm Catholic so not that it matters, but color me less than impressed. Weak choice.

[Franklinnoble]

Benedict XV was Pope for 8 years. He died young, though, at 68. This was also in the mid-1800's, and times have certainly changed since then.

Personally I can't hear "Benedict" without thinking "Benedict Arnold," as evil as that sounds.

I think the choice of an old guy in Ratzinger and his choice of name suggest that the College of Cardinals is really considering him an "interim" Pope. Time will tell, I suppose.

/tk
Why the "interim" pope thing?

They've known that John Paul was on his last legs for 5 years... surely they had enough time to groom a replacement?

I think it's more a case of politics. JP lived a lot longer than most Popes, and the Cardinals would like to have more regular turnover in the position - gives 'em a chance to spread the wealth a bit. They don't want another 20+ year Pope.

If I were Catholic, I'd be pretty happy about this. The new guy is conservative, and that's what the church needs.

[Franklinnoble]

Ratzinger...bah. just what we need, a nice right-wing conservative pope to go with our right-wing conservative president. Not that I'm Catholic so not that it matters, but color me less than impressed. Weak choice.
Yeah, because the Catholic church needs to get with the time and start ordaining gays and women. :rolleyes:

It's about doing God's will - which, for a Christian, hasn't changed in 2000 years.

[Celeval]

Benedict XV was Pope for 8 years. He died young, though, at 68. This was also in the mid-1800's, and times have certainly changed since then.
Mixing up Benedicts - he was 8 years and died young, but was pope from 1914-1922 during World War I.

[wbatl1]

Pope Benedict 16.

Thanks for translating all those roman numerals for me. :)

[gottimd]

Once the archbishop of Munich and for many years prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Ratzinger, 78, is one of the most powerful men in the Vatican and is widely acknowledged as a leading theologian. Ratzinger has served for 20 years as John Paul II's chief theological adviser. As a young priest he was on the progressive side of theological debates but shifted to the right after the student revolutions of 1968. In the Vatican, he has been the driving force behind crackdowns on liberation theology, religious pluralism, challenges to traditional moral teachings on issues such as homosexuality, and dissent on such issues as women's ordination. The dean of the College of Cardinals since November 2002, he was elevated to cardinal by Pope Paul VI in June 1977.

[Celeval]

Yeah, because the Catholic church needs to get with the time and start ordaining gays and women.
Given that Catholic priests take vows of chastity, I would imagine that sexual attraction and preference would not matter in the slightest. Attraction is one thing, acting on that attraction would be a sin whether towards a man or a woman.

I would bank on the Church softening on the idea of married priests before woman priests, honestly.

[wbatl1]

Ratzinger...bah. just what we need, a nice right-wing conservative pope to go with our right-wing conservative president. Not that I'm Catholic so not that it matters, but color me less than impressed. Weak choice.

Since this country matters sooo much to the College of Cardinals. Thats the thing I don't get about liberals, they call for all kinds of diplomacy but then take the thier lives to be the most important. I seriously doubt that George Bush factored at all in the decision, and since only a couple of the cardinals are american, wake up to the fact that our country is not that important.

[JPhillips]

I'm just glad that the followers of the Cardinal of Milan didn't throw flares at Ratzinger!

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah, because the Catholic church needs to get with the time and start ordaining gays and women. :rolleyes:

It's about doing God's will - which, for a Christian, hasn't changed in 2000 years.
i'm not going to get into a theological argument, because quite frankly I view that as a waste of time. Everybody has their own religious beliefs, or falls somewhere on the spectrum. And I'm not religious, that is just my opinion from outside...he's very conservative doctrinally, and with AIDS, abortion and stem-cell research I PERSONALLY just don't think that the church needs someone who wants to keep the church's policies stagnant rather than change with the times. That's all.

Ummn Franklinnoble I think if you look you'd see that they've already ordained plenty of gays...look at all the priests here in the US who like to bugger little boys.

As for women...sure why not...they can't do any worse than men. And wasn't Mary Magdalene closer to Christ than any of his disciples, more faithful to him than any of his male disciples, including Paul? Uh huh...that's right. The whole no-women-priests thing is an outgrowth of the position of women in the Middle Ages when the Church gained the majority of its power and standing in the world, not a result of the outgrowth of the teachings of Christ.

[DaddyTorgo]

Since this country matters sooo much to the College of Cardinals. Thats the thing I don't get about liberals, they call for all kinds of diplomacy but then take the thier lives to be the most important. I seriously doubt that George Bush factored at all in the decision, and since only a couple of the cardinals are american, wake up to the fact that our country is not that important.
it was a flippant remark wbat. i know that this country doesn't matter to the college of cardinals, and frankly that's probably the way it should be. I was just trying to point out that the world in general seems to be leaning in the "conservative direction" if you will

[cartman]

I'm just glad that the followers of the Cardinal of Milan didn't throw flares at Ratzinger!

Nah, they are AC Milan fans, since the Cardinal wears red. If they wore black and blue, then watch out!

[wbatl1]

it was a flippant remark wbat. i know that this country doesn't matter to the college of cardinals, and frankly that's probably the way it should be. I was just trying to point out that the world in general seems to be leaning in the "conservative direction" if you will

Well, what about Europe? the middle east? the rest of the secular world?

[DaddyTorgo]

what about them? You don't think they're leaning more conservative?

[wbatl1]

what about them? You don't think they're leaning more conservative?

Tha fact that catholicism is losing ground in Europe is proof enough. Also, can you really tell me you think France, Germany, ect are nations that are conservative. They may not be moving toward the liberal end of things, but they are definitly not conservative and are not getting more conservative.

[scooper]

Ummn Franklinnoble I think if you look you'd see that they've already ordained plenty of gays...look at all the priests here in the US who like to bugger little boys.


Buggering little boys has much less to do with being gay than it does with being a pedophile. There have been girls as well, just not as many because there has traditionally been much more interaction among priests and boys than with girls. Girls schools tend to be affiliated more with nuns and until recently, alter girls were not very common.

Gay priests is a totally different situation from that of the pedophilia problem.

[Honolulu_Blue]

It's about doing God's will - which, for a Christian, hasn't changed in 2000 years.
You should re-think this statement. How many different forms of Christianity have there been since 04 AD? How many different Christian interpretations of "doing God's will" do you think there are today?

[Bee]

Buggering little boys has much less to do with being gay than it does with being a pedophile. There have been girls as well, just not as many because there has traditionally been much more interaction among priests and boys than with girls. Girls schools tend to be affiliated more with nuns and until recently, alter girls were not very common.

Gay priests is a totally different situation from that of the pedophilia problem.

Right...wouldn't want a gay priest or a woman but pedophiles are ok. :D

Edit: This was a joke thus the smiley face, I understand that the catholic church doesn't encourage pedophilia (they just hide it and let it go unpunished). :D That's another joke btw.

[Franklinnoble]

Personally, I would applaud the Catholic Church if they allowed priests to marry.

It'll never happen, thought.

[Anthony]

the Pope is gay?

[Franklinnoble]

You should re-think this statement. How many different forms of Christianity have there been since 04 AD? How many different Christian interpretations of "doing God's will" do you think there are today?
Nobody's perfect. But the closer we get to Biblically sound, the better, if you asked me.

Of course, nobody asked me, so I'm gonna shut up and leave this thread alone now. I've already pissed in the fan enough.

[DaddyTorgo]

Buggering little boys has much less to do with being gay than it does with being a pedophile. There have been girls as well, just not as many because there has traditionally been much more interaction among priests and boys than with girls. Girls schools tend to be affiliated more with nuns and until recently, alter girls were not very common.

Gay priests is a totally different situation from that of the pedophilia problem.
that's a really weak argument. there is plenty of interaction among priests and girls, particularly in youth groups and the like. weak weak argument.

[stevew]

Well, this is certainly not a youth movement.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I've already pissed in the fan enough.
Heh! That's a funny image. I like it.

[scooper]

(they just hide it and let it go unpunished). :D That's another joke btw.
Joking or not, you won't find many practicing Catholics that aren't outraged at that, either.

[Crapshoot]

Umm ... huh?

I find it interesting in a 3rd party observer sense, but that's about it. I respect the late Pope a great deal for his commitment to his beliefs, his refusal to play the whole PC game with his spirituality, and even for some of his political influence. But as a "leader of Christianity"? Sorry, he doesn't even register on my scale at all.

Are you catholic ? I believe the catholic church is still the largest in the world, and as much as all the Christian sects share the same root beliefs, its not too much of a stretch IMO to call the pope the "Representative" of Christianity.

[st.cronin]

To be 'theologically conservative' is not at all the same thing as being 'politically conservative.' You people are confusing apples and oranges.

[SackAttack]

You should re-think this statement. How many different forms of Christianity have there been since 04 AD? How many different Christian interpretations of "doing God's will" do you think there are today?

Getting into semantics there, though. Franklin didn't say that doing God's will hasn't changed for 2000 years, which is what you seem to be arguing - human interpretation of His will - but that God's will itself has not changed.

Just because there are people who think that homosexuality is okay, for example, doesn't mean that God has changed His mind on the matter. Either He considers it a sin, or He does not.

Humans agitating for a "more liberal Pope" doesn't change that one bit. What it boils down to is that humans want a spiritual leader who will tell them what they want to hear, which is why you see discontent from liberal parishioners and relative satisfaction from conservative ones with the choice of Ratzinger.

The liberals don't appear to be getting the "more inclusive" Church they wanted, and they aren't happy about that - which just seems to me to be a sign that they have more invested in the man who wears the robes than they do in God, on Whose behalf he is supposed to speak.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: that last paragraph confused me, even, and I'm the one who wrote it! Had to edit it to reflect what I was trying to say.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah, because the Catholic church needs to get with the time and start ordaining gays and women. :rolleyes:

It's about doing God's will - which, for a Christian, hasn't changed in 2000 years.

Like the Anglican church, which was formed due to a desire to let Henry get divorced ? Horseshit.

[scooper]

that's a really weak argument. there is plenty of interaction among priests and girls, particularly in youth groups and the like. weak weak argument.
In recent years, yes. I believe youth groups in the Catholic Church really started to take hold in the 80's and 90's. If you research cases of sexual abuse by priests, most of the accusations are from the 70's or early 80's, with a few in the early 90's but not nearly as many.

Besides, most of the accusations have arisen out of relationships within academic settings. Many of the cases of pedophilia have been by priests serving as teachers in boys high schools.

Sure, some of them are gay, but it is not the gay part that makes them pedophiles.

[Crapshoot]

btw, I think Retenzger is a horrible choice, if only because the church ignored its largest constituencies in Africa, Asia and Latin America for yet another European. There was some speculation that the Western world probably wouldn't accept an African pope too kindly, but I'm not certain. That being said, Retenzger seems like a bad move to the past. Why appoint a 78 year old in any case ?

[Warhammer]

i'm not going to get into a theological argument, because quite frankly I view that as a waste of time. Everybody has their own religious beliefs, or falls somewhere on the spectrum. And I'm not religious, that is just my opinion from outside...he's very conservative doctrinally, and with AIDS, abortion and stem-cell research I PERSONALLY just don't think that the church needs someone who wants to keep the church's policies stagnant rather than change with the times. That's all.

As a Catholic, I can say I am thrilled with this choice. Religion is not about picking and choosing which beliefs you will follow and which you will not. It is about following Christ on the path he showed us.

Christian values and beliefs do not change over time. I think several churches are wrong in their approach to new issues. Churches need to be consistent with their message. For example, stem-cell research, from a church's point of view, should not be tampered with because of the slippery slope you can go down. I may disagree with it personally, but I am at odds with the church on that issue. However, I will say that I agree with the President on the issue, continue research on the lines we have, and then for the rest of the research use adult stem cells. However, this is a minor point. It is not the basis for being Catholic. That is found in the dogma of the church, which I agree with.

As another poster claimed, it is more likely that priests will be allowed to marry before women are ordained as priests. The priestly ban on marriage is not very old (relatively speaking), and was brought about, in part, because parishes were abused because they were handed down from father to son during the Middle Ages. Again, this is not a basic tenets of the church though, and does not separate Catholics from non-Catholics.

[wbatl1]

Why appoint a 78 year old in any case ?

So there will be another election in 3-10 years. The church traditionally doesn't favor long-reigning popes like John Paul II

[Gary Gorski]

.he's very conservative doctrinally, and with AIDS, abortion and stem-cell research I PERSONALLY just don't think that the church needs someone who wants to keep the church's policies stagnant rather than change with the times. That's all.

But the point is that the church is not supposed to adapt to things like abortion. It's not like a political party thing where party A believes these things are right and party B believes these things are wrong - all of the cardinals should believe that abortion is wrong and if they don't they have no business being in that position as a leader in the Catholic Church. The church should not adapt its moral doctrines to fit in with what some people in the world feel is ok - its one thing to try and govern citizens of a state with morality but being a member of the church is a voluntary thing so the members should adapt to the doctrine, not vice versa.

[Joe Canadian]

As a Catholic, I can say I am thrilled with this choice. Religion is not about picking and choosing which beliefs you will follow and which you will not. It is about following Christ on the path he showed us.

Christian values and beliefs do not change over time. I think several churches are wrong in their approach to new issues. Churches need to be consistent with their message. For example, stem-cell research, from a church's point of view, should not be tampered with because of the slippery slope you can go down. I may disagree with it personally, but I am at odds with the church on that issue. However, I will say that I agree with the President on the issue, continue research on the lines we have, and then for the rest of the research use adult stem cells. However, this is a minor point. It is not the basis for being Catholic. That is found in the dogma of the church, which I agree with.

As another poster claimed, it is more likely that priests will be allowed to marry before women are ordained as priests. The priestly ban on marriage is not very old (relatively speaking), and was brought about, in part, because parishes were abused because they were handed down from father to son during the Middle Ages.

Alot of this so called "God's Way" is just doctrine made up by man...

[terpkristin]

Religion being "conservative" or "liberal" isn't at all like political "conservative" and "liberal" and frankly it's a TRAVESTY what the US governement has done with aligning itself with ANY church or religion (but that's a different rant for a different thread).

My biggest problem with Ratzinger is as I've said before: he's a divider. He is so staunchly conservative (RELIGIOUSLY conservative) that he's going to drive more so called liberal Catholics away. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm a liberal politically and religiously. My church has always supported my liberalism (and is in fact a VERY liberal church) so truthfully this election of Ratzinger won't really affect me on a PERSONAL level.

I just think that with an ever-dwindling number of Catholics and more importantly, an ever-dwindling number of young men choosing to enter the Priesthood, the Catholic Church as a whole needs somebody who can bring things together and, in particular, keep the interest of the youth. Pope John Paul II did this with his World Youth Conferences and in fact despite not agreeing with some of his decisions, I believe he was a fantastic Pope for drawing people together. I do not believe Ratzinger will be able to have that same effect.

Of course, that's just me. And, time will tell. This was God's choice, as SirFozzie pointed out, and now it's really time to let people hope and pray that the Catholic church doesn't wane further.

/tk

[Honolulu_Blue]

Getting into semantics there, though. Franklin didn't say that doing God's will hasn't changed for 2000 years, which is what you seem to be arguing - human interpretation of His will - but that God's will itself has not changed.

Just because there are people who think that homosexuality is okay, for example, doesn't mean that God has changed His mind on the matter. Either He considers it a sin, or He does not.

Humans agitating for a "more liberal Pope" doesn't change that one bit. What it boils down to is that humans want a spiritual leader who will tell them what they want to hear, which is why you see discontent from liberal parishioners and relative satisfaction from conservative ones with the choice of Ratzinger.

The liberals don't appear to be getting the "more inclusive" Church they wanted, and they aren't happy about that - which just seems to me to be a sign that they have more invested in the man who wears the robes than God, on Whose behalf he is supposed to speak.

Just my two cents.
I understood Franky's statement to mean "doing God's will" is what hasn't changed in 2000, because saying that God's will hasn't changed in 2000 years makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, if you believe in God, then, I guess, his will hasn't changed since, well, forever. By limiting it to 2000 years, I assume the statement is limiting it to birth of Christianity. What are the tennets of Christianity if not Human's intrepretation of God's Will? I mean, did God's will suddenly change 2,000 years ago?

Also, how the hell do we know what God's will is? Do we know for certain that God that doesn't think homosexuality is okay? It's hinted at in the Bible, but what is the Bible if not human's interpretation of His Will? And besides, there are all sorts of stuff in the Bible that God doesn't seem to think are ok, but Christians really don't pay any mind to.

[scooper]

btw, I think Retenzger is a horrible choice, if only because the church ignored its largest constituencies in Africa, Asia and Latin America for yet another European. There was some speculation that the Western world probably wouldn't accept an African pope too kindly, but I'm not certain. That being said, Retenzger seems like a bad move to the past. Why appoint a 78 year old in any case ?
By past you must mean a couple weeks ago. Ratzinger won't vary much theologically from JPII. I just hope he has the compasion and enegy to match him.

[cartman]

Personally, I would applaud the Catholic Church if they allowed priests to marry.

It'll never happen, thought.

There are a few (very few) married Catholic priests. One was my religion teacher in high school. He was a priest in the Episcopal Church, and was also married with two kids. He left the Episcopal Church, and appealed to the Pope for special dispensation to be a Catholic priest. It was granted, and he has been the pastor of a Catholic church in Keller, TX for several years now.

[Joe Canadian]

But the point is that the church is not supposed to adapt to things like abortion. It's not like a political party thing where party A believes these things are right and party B believes these things are wrong - all of the cardinals should believe that abortion is wrong and if they don't they have no business being in that position as a leader in the Catholic Church. The church should not adapt its moral doctrines to fit in with what some people in the world feel is ok - its one thing to try and govern citizens of a state with morality but being a member of the church is a voluntary thing so the members should adapt to the doctrine, not vice versa.

The above is why the church will continue to loose touch with it's followers... and eventually loose all importance... IF it doesn't change. While the church may have the opportunity to live in the past, and live as if they are living in the world of 1000 years ago, it's followers don't have that opportunity, they have to live in today's world.

[Joe Canadian]

Also, how the hell do we know what God's will is? Do we know for certain that God that doesn't think homosexuality is okay? It's hinted at in the Bible, but what is the Bible if not human's interpretation of His Will? And besides, there are all sorts of stuff in the Bible that God doesn't seem to think are ok, but Christians really don't pay any mind to.

You'd think people would finally realize that, but alot of people don't...

[korme]

hell yea now i can order my eggs pope style!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DaddyTorgo]

Honolulu Blue and Joe Canadian said it best. The bible and christianity are not god's will. They are human interpertations of God's will, and despite being an athiest now I went to Boston College and took my religious classes, and even studied some theology. The Bible is an amalgram of stories and experiences from ancient times, not the literal recording of the words of god. The stories in there are compiled years after the fact, and altered after the fact by different authors. THEY ARE NOT THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD! THEY ARE INTERPERTATIONS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE c. 100-400 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE JESUS OF NAZARETH! And that's a fact. You can't argue that. That's accepted by academic theologians, including ALL of my professors and priests that I knew at B.C. So "God's will" whatever that is, is open to interpertation, it has always been open to interpertation.

[scooper]

The above is why the church will continue to loose touch with it's followers... and eventually loose all importance... IF it doesn't change. While the church may have the opportunity to live in the past, and live as if they are living in the world of 1000 years ago, it's followers don't have that opportunity, they have to live in today's world.
On the contrary, the above is why the followers are losing touch with the Church. This isn't a political party. There is not marketing or recruiting. There is no adapting beliefs to make things comfortable. It is what it is. It is possible, QUITE possible to live in today's world and follow church teachings. Just about any church's teachings.

[Crapshoot]

As a Catholic, I can say I am thrilled with this choice. Religion is not about picking and choosing which beliefs you will follow and which you will not. It is about following Christ on the path he showed us.

Christian values and beliefs do not change over time. I think several churches are wrong in their approach to new issues. Churches need to be consistent with their message. For example, stem-cell research, from a church's point of view, should not be tampered with because of the slippery slope you can go down. I may disagree with it personally, but I am at odds with the church on that issue. However, I will say that I agree with the President on the issue, continue research on the lines we have, and then for the rest of the research use adult stem cells. However, this is a minor point. It is not the basis for being Catholic. That is found in the dogma of the church, which I agree with.

As another poster claimed, it is more likely that priests will be allowed to marry before women are ordained as priests. The priestly ban on marriage is not very old (relatively speaking), and was brought about, in part, because parishes were abused because they were handed down from father to son during the Middle Ages. Again, this is not a basic tenets of the church though, and does not separate Catholics from non-Catholics.


Really ? The Anglican Church with Henry ? The stance on the sun revolving around the earth ? The support for slavery ? The tactic endorsement of racism ? The church is like any other large organization - it appeals to a core constituency, and changes with them.

[scooper]

Honolulu Blue and Joe Canadian said it best. The bible and christianity are not god's will. They are human interpertations of God's will, and despite being an athiest now I went to Boston College and took my religious classes, and even studied some theology. The Bible is an amalgram of stories and experiences from ancient times, not the literal recording of the words of god. The stories in there are compiled years after the fact, and altered after the fact by different authors. THEY ARE NOT THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD! THEY ARE INTERPERTATIONS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE c. 100-400 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE JESUS OF NAZARETH! And that's a fact. You can't argue that. That's accepted by academic theologians, including ALL of my professors and priests that I knew at B.C. So "God's will" whatever that is, is open to interpertation, it has always been open to interpertation.
Well, that settles it. A college professor said so.

I'll be the first to admit, following the Bible as word of God takes a HUGE leap of faith. If one can't make that leap of faith, so be it. Nobody is forcing you to. But if you aren't willing to take that leap, then the discussion of the leader of the largest group of believers on the planet really isn't a discussion for you and your opinions take on less relevence.

[Joe Canadian]

On the contrary, the above is why the followers are losing touch with the Church. This isn't a political party. There is not marketing or recruiting. There is no adapting beliefs to make things comfortable. It is what it is. It is possible, QUITE possible to live in today's world and follow church teachings. Just about any church's teachings.

Well okay... but either way... the church won't do anyone any good if it looses all importance to the people of the world. You can hope that the general public will revert to a mindset people had hundreds of years ago, but bottom line is that it won't happen... the church needs to adapt to keep its relavence.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I had a hard time deciding whether to quote from this post or from Warhammer's, because they both touch on something I've said for years. I finally went with this one because it uses almost the exact phrase that I usually do:

The church should not adapt its moral doctrines to fit in with what some people in the world feel is ok - its one thing to try and govern citizens of a state with morality but being a member of the church is a voluntary thing so the members should adapt to the doctrine, not vice versa.

Now, I'm not Catholic and am not ever likely to be. But with both the most recent Pope & with the expectations of the one chosen today, the amount of respect I have for them -- as an institution and of the two Popes as people --
is as high as it has ever been.

[Joe Canadian]

Well, that settles it. A college professor said so.

I'll be the first to admit, following the Bible as word of God takes a HUGE leap of faith. If one can't make that leap of faith, so be it. Nobody is forcing you to. But if you aren't willing to take that leap, then the discussion of the leader of the largest group of believers on the planet really isn't a discussion for you and your opinions take on less relevence.

:D

I've run out of logical arguments so I'll revert to the standard... You don't believe in God, so you can't talk about it.

[SackAttack]

I understood Franky's statement to mean "doing God's will" is what hasn't changed in 2000, because saying that God's will hasn't changed in 2000 years makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, if you believe in God, then, I guess, his will hasn't changed since, well, forever. By limiting it to 2000 years, I assume the statement is limiting it to birth of Christianity. What are the tennets of Christianity if not Human's intrepretation of God's Will? I mean, did God's will suddenly change 2,000 years ago?

I'm not a theologian. I know what I want to say, but I'm afraid I can't argue it very effectively, but the best summary I can come up with is this:

What God considers sin has not changed. He's not mutable on that topic. Murder doesn't suddenly become okay, nor do adultery, theft, and homosexuality.

He doesn't change His mind on sin just because a bunch of people down on Earth take a vote and say "well, that's all right, then."

Many of His other rules, such as those about what is clean and unclean to eat, well, you'll find some debate on those. "What God has made unclean, He can also make clean." I think that generally refers to healthy living, as opposed to acts of sin.


Also, how the hell do we know what God's will is? Do we know for certain that God that doesn't think homosexuality is okay? It's hinted at in the Bible, but what is the Bible if not human's interpretation of His Will? And besides, there are all sorts of stuff in the Bible that God doesn't seem to think are ok, but Christians really don't pay any mind to.

Humans are fallible. Are you a parent? Have you ever hollered at your kid for doing something he wasn't supposed to do, but went ahead and did anyway? Did he tune you out?

Again, I'm no theologian. I'm not going to get into what God does or doesn't consider sinful. I know what I believe He considers sin, but if you don't accept it from a 6,000 year old source, you aren't going to accept it from me, either.

What humanity gets together and votes on as being sinful or not has absolutely no bearing on what God considers sinful. Either homosexuality is, or is not, an abomination before God's eyes, and He does not take opinion polls.

[DaddyTorgo]

Well, that settles it. A college professor said so.

I'll be the first to admit, following the Bible as word of God takes a HUGE leap of faith. If one can't make that leap of faith, so be it. Nobody is forcing you to. But if you aren't willing to take that leap, then the discussion of the leader of the largest group of believers on the planet really isn't a discussion for you and your opinions take on less relevence.
not just one professor scooper. ALL of my professors. And every priest that I have ever met. And I understand that nobody is forcing me to, which believe me I appreciate. And if you look down about 30-40 comments you will see that I have already stated that I understand that my opinion is of no relevence as to how good a choice Ratzinger is. But that doesn't change the fact that I can still debate theology and correct misconceptions that Catholics seem to have. Just because I don't belive doesn't mean that I am not allowed to correct the misconceptions of others. Otherwise you could argue that no one could have criticized and "corrected" the Nazis without being an anti-semite and a nazi themself. One doesn't have to be an insider to correct misconceptions.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I am glad that Pope Benedict XVI was chosen. His performance duiring the funeral mass elevated him above the rest. He is the logical choice because he is a great orator and will follow church doctrine to the letter. He will continue John Paul II's doctrine and lead the church. As he said 2 days ago during the pre conclave mass .... ''Follow Me.''

[Franklinnoble]

hell yea now i can order my eggs pope style!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Best post in the thread.

Damn, it's nice to have Shorty back. :D

[Joe Canadian]

not just one professor scooper. ALL of my professors.

For future reference, when talking about religion never mention professor, college, or university... if you do it's instantly shrugged off by some as, those crazy liberals trying to brainwash us all again...

[scooper]

:D

I've run out of logical arguments so I'll revert to the standard... You don't believe in God, so you can't talk about it.
You don't think it's logical that a new pope holds much more relevence for people who believe in God?

Certainly you can talk about it. He's a major world figure. If it were a private party, it wouldn't be all over the news right now. But I've talked about Arnold Schwarzenneger, and discussion of him is much more relevent to a Californian than it is for me.

[Gary Gorski]

The above is why the church will continue to loose touch with it's followers... and eventually loose all importance... IF it doesn't change. While the church may have the opportunity to live in the past, and live as if they are living in the world of 1000 years ago, it's followers don't have that opportunity, they have to live in today's world.

You couldn't be more wrong Steve. It's not the church losing touch with its followers - its the followers losing touch with the church.

The doctrine of the church is not convienent for some people today. Nobody says you have to be Catholic - if you don't like the doctrine then by all means you shouldn't be Catholic. Why is it that people want to go against the doctrine and then demand that the organization adapt to their individual choices so that they are no longer "wrong" in the eyes of the church? The church is supposed to teach its members what is right and wrong, just and unjust. Its up to the members to live by those standards and not attempt to tweak and adjust them to fit with the way they would like to do things.

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

As for women...sure why not...they can't do any worse than men. And wasn't Mary Magdalene closer to Christ than any of his disciples, more faithful to him than any of his male disciples, including Paul? Uh huh...that's right. The whole no-women-priests thing is an outgrowth of the position of women in the Middle Ages when the Church gained the majority of its power and standing in the world, not a result of the outgrowth of the teachings of Christ.

As for women why not? because Christ hand picked his twelve Apostles and they were all men. So this doctrine can not change. As for St Mary Magdalene being closer to Christ then St Paul. You are right she was because at the time Christ was on earth St Paul was to busy persacuting Christians. To make the claim She was closer then the others to Christ ,where besides the Davinci code or The last temptation of Christ do you get this?

My biggest problem with Ratzinger is as I've said before: he's a divider. He is so staunchly conservative (RELIGIOUSLY conservative) that he's going to drive more so called liberal Catholics away. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm a liberal politically and religiously. My church has always supported my liberalism (and is in fact a VERY liberal church) so truthfully this election of Ratzinger won't really affect me on a PERSONAL level.

They could have elected Richard Simmons as pope and all the changes you would want would not happen. Whom ever the Holy Father is, they can not change Doctrine or Tradition . Perhaps the only thing that may change (slim slim chance) is that possibly we could see a married priesthood. But this traces back to the Third Century in the Latin Church and actually back to St Paul and to Christ himself. So , with voctations strong world wide (the Church does exist outside America) I dont see this happening.

[terpkristin]

How has nobody quoted "Dogma" yet?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120655/quotes

/tk

[scooper]

For future reference, when talking about religion never mention professor, college, or university... if you do it's instantly shrugged off by some as, those crazy liberals trying to brainwash us all again...
i graduated from a Catholic College. I apologize for my comment about a professor above. Their scope of views on religion is often as wide as on politics or anything else. But there are theologians out there who do have a more liberal slant. Many Jesuits are known to be among them. I'm not familiar with any of the professors at Boston College, but I have some familiarity with another Jesuit University where most of the professors are not certified to teach Catholic doctrine by the church and that is because in many ways, the University is Catholic in name only, though they do have a strong presence when it comes to service.

[Joe Canadian]

You couldn't be more wrong Steve. It's not the church losing touch with its followers - its the followers losing touch with the church.

The doctrine of the church is not convienent for some people today. Nobody says you have to be Catholic - if you don't like the doctrine then by all means you shouldn't be Catholic. Why is it that people want to go against the doctrine and then demand that the organization adapt to their individual choices so that they are no longer "wrong" in the eyes of the church? The church is supposed to teach its members what is right and wrong, just and unjust. Its up to the members to live by those standards and not attempt to tweak and adjust them to fit with the way they would like to do things.

You couldn't me more wrong Gary, becuase you disagree with my 100% factual opinion :)...

I posted this in reply to a similar post above:

Well okay... but either way... the church won't do anyone any good if it looses all importance to the people of the world. You can hope that the general public will revert to a mindset people had hundreds of years ago, but bottom line is that it won't happen... the church needs to adapt to keep its relavence.

PS - The new TPB is great...

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Like the decision or not it is a very historic event. Not a person there will ever forget this moment. Lucky journalists, it must have been a chilling experience.

[Maple Leafs]

Why the "interim" pope thing?
My guess is they really want Phil Jackson.

[Bee]

Really ? The Anglican Church with Henry ? The stance on the sun revolving around the earth ? The support for slavery ? The tactic endorsement of racism ? The church is like any other large organization - it appeals to a core constituency, and changes with them.

I'm not a religious scholar, but from my understanding there have been several things where the church's stance has changed over the centuries (like a few mentioned above). It seems to me the liberal side think the church needs to continue to make such changes while the conservatives think they should avoid making such changes. Does that sum up the difference between the two groups?

[JonInMiddleGA]

... the church won't do anyone any good if it looses all importance to the people of the world. ... the church needs to adapt to keep its relavence.

I couldn't disagree more (or at least I'm having a tough time figuring out a way I could).

The Church (capital letter intentional & not neccessarily meaning The Catholic Church) is and will always be relevant. People, on the other hand ...

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Pope Benedict XV tried to end The Great War c. 1914-1918. He also tried to convert Europe. If that means anything then Pope Benedict XVI will try to unite the church and or try to halt the growing muslim influence in western europe. If done then he will be called:
THE PANZER POPE.

[scooper]

[QUOTE=DaddyTorgo]But that doesn't change the fact that I can still debate theology and correct misconceptions that Catholics seem to have. [QUOTE]

You certainly have that right. But I'm trying to figure out what misconception you are talking about. Is it the misconception that the Bible is the word of God? I've already ceded that belief in the word requires a HUGE leap of faith. That's why we call our beliefs our "faith." I can understand how ridiculous that must sound to an atheist, especially one with a strong sense of logic. But you believe in something you can't see or you don't. I hate to break it down to that level, but that's the case.

[scooper]

My guess is they really want Phil Jackson.
Well, we thought we had Urban Meyer locked up, but it turns out he had already worked a deal with some shiny new non-denominational church located in an old shopping center. :D

[Gary Gorski]

You couldn't me more wrong Gary, becuase you disagree with my 100% factual opinion :)...

I posted this in reply to a similar post above:

Well okay... but either way... the church won't do anyone any good if it looses all importance to the people of the world. You can hope that the general public will revert to a mindset people had hundreds of years ago, but bottom line is that it won't happen... the church needs to adapt to keep its relavence.

Steve what you seem to be saying is that if the church doesn't get on board with things like accepting abortion and homosexuality because so much of America and parts of the world accept these things then the church is going to become irrelevant. I argue just the opposite - the minute the church tosses its doctrine out the window in an attempt to be politically correct or basically to accept anyone's actions as being ok just so they feel ok with the church is the minute it loses its relevance.

I'll restate what I said earlier - the church does not have the responsibility of accepting actions just because a percentage of the population finds them socially acceptable. If a person is at odds with the doctrine of the church its up to that person as an individual to decide whether he or she can live by the doctrine of the church and if not then to try and find a faith that fits more in line with their own personal views - that should be common sense though. Why would you want to be a member of an organization that clearly is against some of the personal choices you make in your life?

PS - The new TPB is great...

Thank you

[Crapshoot]

Steve what you seem to be saying is that if the church doesn't get on board with things like accepting abortion and homosexuality because so much of America and parts of the world accept these things then the church is going to become irrelevant. I argue just the opposite - the minute the church tosses its doctrine out the window in an attempt to be politically correct or basically to accept anyone's actions as being ok just so they feel ok with the church is the minute it loses its relevance.

I'll restate what I said earlier - the church does not have the responsibility of accepting actions just because a percentage of the population finds them socially acceptable. If a person is at odds with the doctrine of the church its up to that person as an individual to decide whether he or she can live by the doctrine of the church and if not then to try and find a faith that fits more in line with their own personal views - that should be common sense though. Why would you want to be a member of an organization that clearly is against some of the personal choices you make in your life?





I actually agree with you to some extent Gary, but the point is that the church has changed its stance in the past, on issues where I doubt you want it relying on 2,000 year old societal standards - be it racism, be it slavery (unless you think it should rely on old societal attitudes for this as well). Also, I know you're catholic, but the Anglican church is an example of a church set up because Henry needed to marry wife 7. The church has shown an ability to change when pushed to the edge- the point some are making is that it should be more pro-active in this, not just when its back is pushed to the wall. To quote that bastion of liberal thought "The Economist", at some point the church has to recognize its moral culpability when it tells an African peasant with 8 kids that she shouldn't be using contraception (and thus having more kids). 2,000 years ago, many of the problems we face today were simply not apparent- how on earth could the church have planned for them ? Its role is to interpret as much as anything, and this is where those of us who think it should be more flexible see room for improvement.

[Celeval]

'll be the first to admit, following the Bible as word of God takes a HUGE leap of faith. If one can't make that leap of faith, so be it. Nobody is forcing you to. But if you aren't willing to take that leap, then the discussion of the leader of the largest group of believers on the planet really isn't a discussion for you and your opinions take on less relevence.
Then, simply put, the line of interpretation shifts. Who interprets the Bible? According to the Catholic church, priests do - and that interpretation can be re-interpreted with a better understanding. The teachings of the Church have changed - not because the will of God has changed, per se, but perhaps because a particular pope may have a better understanding of what God's will might be.

Just as well - it is possible (as all things are) that God's will may not change, but his will includes a change in philosophy. Was it God's will that 100 years ago all masses were in Latin? Is it God's will that they are not now? Did his will change? Was the Church going against God's will during one of those times? It's possible and believable that God's will was/is that Vatican II was to happen at the time and place it did, and that changes would happen to the Church at that point in time.

Perhaps it is God's will that something that has been tradition will change. It was God's will that beliefs and faiths changed about 2000 years ago, and at other points between then and now - hence revelations to His people.

[cartman]

The only time for sure that a change in Church policy is God's will is when Papal Infallibility is invoked. Then it is a decision made by God, and relayed through the Pope.

[gottimd]

Pope Benedict 16.

I think it is Pope Benedict XVI, that is a weird last name, is it pronounced "zee-vi" :D

[Celeval]

The only time for sure that a change in Church policy is God's will is when Papal Infallibility is invoked. Then it is a decision made by God, and relayed through the Pope.
Which a small fraction of church teachings actually are... I honestly don't know (perhaps someone does?) if the rulings on married priests, female priests, etc are part of church tradition or Church Tradition (infalliability). From what I recall, the infalliable statements have been things like the Immaculate Conception, etc.

[scooper]

Then, simply put, the line of interpretation shifts. Who interprets the Bible? According to the Catholic church, priests do - and that interpretation can be re-interpreted with a better understanding. The teachings of the Church have changed - not because the will of God has changed, per se, but perhaps because a particular pope may have a better understanding of what God's will might be.

Just as well - it is possible (as all things are) that God's will may not change, but his will includes a change in philosophy. Was it God's will that 100 years ago all masses were in Latin? Is it God's will that they are not now? Did his will change? Was the Church going against God's will during one of those times? It's possible and believable that God's will was/is that Vatican II was to happen at the time and place it did, and that changes would happen to the Church at that point in time.

Perhaps it is God's will that something that has been tradition will change. It was God's will that beliefs and faiths changed about 2000 years ago, and at other points between then and now - hence revelations to His people.
Yes. Change happens. Vatican II was a tremendous change. And I'm a somewhat moderate Catholic that believes more change is inevitible and needed. But these are changes in tradition, ritualistic practices, maybe even a change in the hierarchy of the Church at a local level. This is not the same as change in morality. I personally see no problem with married priests, but I sure has heck don't want the Church to back down on topics such as abortion and adulatry.

[scooper]

Which a small fraction of church teachings actually are... I honestly don't know (perhaps someone does?) if the rulings on married priests, female priests, etc are part of church tradition or Church Tradition (infalliability). From what I recall, the infalliable statements have been things like the Immaculate Conception, etc.
The rulings in female priests seems to come from day one, but the stance on married priests does not. As mentioned somewhere above, the ban on married priests came about as a result of abuse of power as parishes were handed down to sons. At one time, the Church held much more political power than it does now. I see where the ban was a good thing, but perhaps it has run its course.

[Passacaglia]

I was hoping they would elect George Carlin, so he could bring in Catholicism WOW!

[cartman]

The rulings in female priests seems to come from day one, but the stance on married priests does not. As mentioned somewhere above, the ban on married priests came about as a result of abuse of power as parishes were handed down to sons. At one time, the Church held much more political power than it does now. I see where the ban was a good thing, but perhaps it has run its course.

Yes, there were married priests in the early years of the Church. In fact, there was a father/son pope combination at one time.

[gottimd]

Anyone know why a newly elected pope changes his name to that of popes in the past? I know its a stupid question and may have been answered in the posts somewhere, but I was curious to know the reason why. I know nothing about the subject and all I can relate it to, is, if everytime we elected a new president, they changed their name to George washington XVI or something, and I know that is an incorrect analogy.

Out of respect and to honor past popes?

[Wolfpack]

(My turn...)

Why the "interim" pope thing?

They've got a great kid on the bench waiting for his turn, but they didn't want to burn his redshirt?

[Gary Gorski]

the point some are making is that it should be more pro-active in this, not just when its back is pushed to the wall. To quote that bastion of liberal thought "The Economist", at some point the church has to recognize its moral culpability when it tells an African peasant with 8 kids that she shouldn't be using contraception (and thus having more kids).

But what you are saying is you want the church to dictate its doctrine and morality based on one person or group of people. What about in America - isn't it possible to have 8 children and still a very nice lifestyle? I know for a fact that it is because I know of families like that. What the church needs to do is find ways to help end the poverty in Africa, not change the doctrine it dictates to the world. You have to realize the church isn't telling an African peasant that she shouldn't use contraception (if she could even get it to use) but rather that the church is telling Catholics that they shouldn't use contraception. Morality is not wealth-based - it is absolute.

The problem with situational morality is that where does it stop for the church? If it tells the African peasant its ok to use contraception because she cannot afford the children she has let alone any more does it then become ok to tell her that abortion is ok as well? That's the very reason why the church cannot just flippantly change its moral teachings based on a situation.

[Young Drachma]

I think the early buzz around Ratzinger was interesting, in that, he ended up winning. Maybe they didn't want media scrutiny to get the best of them. I knew the African had no shot, the church isn't ready for that. I think the guy from Central America, Maradiaga is probably next. He was too young this time, from what I understand, but looking at his qualifications - and the fact that he's an appeal, charismatic character would make him a great pick after this pope umm..ends his reign.

I don't know if it's okay to be talking about this stuff like it's fodder, but when the church parades it out there and dominates the media and such alike, seems that it's fair game then.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

They are just waiting a few years to mature the younger cardinals.

[Celeval]

Anyone know why a newly elected pope changes his name to that of popes in the past? I know its a stupid question and may have been answered in the posts somewhere, but I was curious to know the reason why. I know nothing about the subject and all I can relate it to, is, if everytime we elected a new president, they changed their name to George washington XVI or something, and I know that is an incorrect analogy.

Out of respect and to honor past popes?
Doesn't have to be necessarily the name of a past pope, although it typically is. It's a tradition that generally is meant to symbolize the new personage, new role, new life the former cardinal now-pope is taking on.

Similar to the name taken by Catholics upon confirmation.

[rexallllsc]

Christian values and beliefs do not change over time. I think several churches are wrong in their approach to new issues. Churches need to be consistent with their message.

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

[Castlerock]

Anyone know why a newly elected pope changes his name to that of popes in the past? I know its a stupid question and may have been answered in the posts somewhere, but I was curious to know the reason why. I know nothing about the subject and all I can relate it to, is, if everytime we elected a new president, they changed their name to George washington XVI or something, and I know that is an incorrect analogy.

Out of respect and to honor past popes?
The first pope to change his name was back in the 6th century. His name was derived from 'Mercury' and he didn't think the pope should have the name of a pagan god. It has since become tradition. Typically, the new pope selects the name of his favorite Saint or a former pope whom he admires.

[gottimd]

Thanks Celeval and Castlerock!

[ISiddiqui]

For those saying that the Church shouldn't adapt, the followers should... what do you call Vatican II? It was quite obviously an attempt to change Church practices to be relevant in the modern age.

[yabanci]

What's really funny is how many protestants are celebrating the choice simply because they hear the word "conservative," even though they don't understand how conservative roman catholic doctrine views the various strains of Protestantism.

In other words, you are celebrating a man who deplores protestant evangelical movements and considers them a danger to christianity.

[Franklinnoble]

What's really funny is how many protestants are celebrating the choice simply because they hear the word "conservative," even though they don't understand how conservative roman catholic doctrine views the various strains of Protestantism.

In other words, you are celebrating a man who deplores protestant evangelical movements and considers them a danger to christianity.
Maybe... but at least he's not going to soften the church's stance on bigger issues like abortion and gay marriage.

[yabanci]

Maybe... but at least he's not going to soften the church's stance on bigger issues like abortion and gay marriage.

right, the big issues like abortion and gay marriage. Who cares about the little issues like how to worship god, how to have your sins forgiven, how to get to heaven, etc.?

[Joe Canadian]

The Church (capital letter intentional & not neccessarily meaning The Catholic Church) is and will always be relevant. People, on the other hand ...

Well I couldn't disagree more with this... so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

IMO, nothing (speaking about organizations such as the Church) is really relavant without support from the public.

[stkelly52]

Honolulu Blue and Joe Canadian said it best. The bible and christianity are not god's will. They are human interpertations of God's will, and despite being an athiest now I went to Boston College and took my religious classes, and even studied some theology. The Bible is an amalgram of stories and experiences from ancient times, not the literal recording of the words of god. The stories in there are compiled years after the fact, and altered after the fact by different authors. THEY ARE NOT THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD! THEY ARE INTERPERTATIONS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE c. 100-400 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE JESUS OF NAZARETH! And that's a fact. You can't argue that. That's accepted by academic theologians, including ALL of my professors and priests that I knew at B.C. So "God's will" whatever that is, is open to interpertation, it has always been open to interpertation.

The problem with your arguement is that you fail to understand one of the most basic beliefs in Christianity. The vast majority of Christians believe that the Bible is the INSPIRED word of God. Who wrote the book and when it was writen is irrelevent, what is important is that God dictated (either concept for concept or else word for word depending on your beliefs) what he wanted the Bible to say to his collection of authors. To Christians this makes the Bible the best way that we have to determine what is God's will.
Also, if you are going to reject the Bible for the reasons you stated above, then what would a Christian base his faith on? Are there any instructions in life? If you can't trust the Bible, then there is no Christianity.

[Sharpieman]

right, the big issues like abortion and gay marriage. Who cares about the little issues like how to worship god, how to have your sins forgiven, how to get to heaven, etc.?
I think he meant political issues. Abortion and gay marriage are the most important. Peace, social justice and poverty don't matter.

[Izulde]

Well, looks like I have to eat my hat on this one ;)

I was floored when I heard the news after getting home just now

[Rizon]

Apparently the Vatican sided with Brian Sabean instead of Billy Beane on this one.

[Sharpieman]

Apparently the Vatican sided with Brian Sabean instead of Billy Beane on this one.
What is that supposed to mean?

[st.cronin]

What is that supposed to mean?

Going with the proven vet over the cheaper youth, is my guess.

[Joe Canadian]

I think he meant political issues. Abortion and gay marriage are the most important. Peace, social justice and poverty don't matter.

And as we've seen the church really doesn't care about the AIDS epidemic in Africa... if they do, then they aren't doing anything to help the problem. Preaching abstence is all fine and dandy... but what about the people sho choose to have sex? Shouldn't the church be trying to keep these people safe? I guess church doctrine is more important!!!

[Honolulu_Blue]

And as we've seen the church really doesn't care about the AIDS epidemic in Africa... if they do, then they aren't doing anything to help the problem. Preaching abstence is all fine and dandy... but what about the people sho choose to have sex? Shouldn't the church be trying to keep these people safe? I guess church doctrine is more important!!!
Not only does the church not condone the use of condoms, but the Catholic church actually lies to those people in Africa. In fact, in order to promote its anti-birth control "rules" it tells them that condems does not prevent the transmission of AIDS so they should not use them. This is in countries where life expectancy has dropped by half since the early 1990s because of AIDS. I find this fucking shameful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids

Steve Bradshaw
Thursday October 9, 2003
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.


The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

The church's claims are revealed in a BBC1 Panorama programme, Sex and the Holy City, to be broadcast on Sunday. The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

"These margins of uncertainty... should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .

Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses".

The Vatican's Cardinal Trujillo said: "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognisable fact."

The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend.

In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: "Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."

Sex and the Holy City includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".

In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids." Panorama found the claims about permeable condoms repeated by Catholics as far apart as Asia and Latin America.

[Joe Canadian]

Not only does the church not condone the use of condoms, but the Catholic church actually lies to those people in Africa. In fact, in order to promote its anti-birth control "rules" it tells them that condems does not prevent the transmission of AIDS so they should not use them. This is in countries where life expectancy has dropped by half since the early 1990s because of AIDS. I find this fucking shameful.

To be fair, I believe there is debate about wether this is the Church saying that or if it is certain people within the Church. However, either way... the church is doing nothing to stop these lies from being told, and they aren't helping the situation at all by preaching abstence ONLY. What's even worse is that the RC Church is expanding in leaps and bounds in Africa, and the resulting membership is following the church's birth control teachings strictly, unlike North American Catholics.

I'm not really sure how this can be spun as a good thing. I understand, well sort of, those that believe church doctrine should never be changed... but faced with such tragic, preventable, loss of human life... I think some leeway can be made. If not, then the church is apparently saying that the doctrine is more important than human life. Which really flies in the face of the whole "Culture of Life" business...

[Neon_Chaos]

Wow. Nazi-boy won it.

[VPI97]

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/VPI97/pope.jpg

[Neon_Chaos]

oh shit. that's funny shit right there. hahahaha.

[stkelly52]

To be fair, I believe there is debate about wether this is the Church saying that or if it is certain people within the Church. However, either way... the church is doing nothing to stop these lies from being told, and they aren't helping the situation at all by preaching abstence ONLY. What's even worse is that the RC Church is expanding in leaps and bounds in Africa, and the resulting membership is following the church's birth control teachings strictly, unlike North American Catholics.

I'm not really sure how this can be spun as a good thing. I understand, well sort of, those that believe church doctrine should never be changed... but faced with such tragic, preventable, loss of human life... I think some leeway can be made. If not, then the church is apparently saying that the doctrine is more important than human life. Which really flies in the face of the whole "Culture of Life" business...

Are you saying that these people are such stauch followers of the teachings of Catholicism that they won't use condoms, but they couldn't care less about the church's teaching that you should not have sex until married. If these people are following the teachings of the church, then AIDS is not going be a problem. The reality is if you are in a monogamous relationship then HIV is not really a problem. The problem is when you (or your partner)are having sex with a other people.

[Gary Gorski]

Are you saying that these people are such stauch followers of the teachings of Catholicism that they won't use condoms, but they couldn't care less about the church's teaching that you should not have sex until married. If these people are following the teachings of the church, then AIDS is not going be a problem.

Very well put - why is it that they would be listening to the church about not using condoms or other methods of contraception yet not listening to the church about chastity outside of marriage and monogomay within a marriage? You can't lay the responsibility on the doorstep of the church when people aren't listening to the message of the church.

You don't think that the problem of AIDS in places like Africa has to do with the immense poverty and lack of education for a majority of the people? Why is it that people in these third world countries don't hop in their car, drive to the local convience store and pick up a box of condoms before having sex? Because the Catholic Church tells them not to use condoms? I think not - how about that they don't have a car, convience store or the money to buy food let alone a condom.

The church is supposed to give you the highest guidelines to live your life by - not reduce its moral standards because people have a hard time with them. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe its society that has it backwards in at least some of these issues? Look at one of the top TV shows now - a show about a bunch of married people sleeping around on each other. Desperate Housewives is a massively accepted and appluaded show. Should the church take a look and see that people seem to be really enamored with this show and decide to be more lenient on that whole marriage/monogamy morality thing? DH may just be a TV show and people might just watch because they think its entertaining or because some of the women are hot or whatever but its not a show based off of wild fantasy - its a reality in today's world.

Just because something becomes acceptable or a norm in society does not mean the church should lower its moral standards to meet it. You want to do something about AIDS in Africa? Get the world leaders together (and religious leaders if you don't mind mixing politics with religion) and get them to agree to stop wasting money on frivolous things in their countries and pull some of these places out of the dirt poverty that they are in. Then again that would be alot of trouble having to slash budgets, cooperate with other countries and deal with the dictators, warlords and whoever else runs these third world nations so maybe if the Church tells them its ok to use condoms then AIDS would go down, right? The answer is not to drop a box of condoms in their village and hope for the best.

The thing is, the Church already provides the answer - its just that people have become conditoned to think its unrealistic to expect someone to only have sex with one person in their lifetime.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Very well put - why is it that they would be listening to the church about not using condoms or other methods of contraception yet not listening to the church about chastity outside of marriage and monogomay within a marriage? You can't lay the responsibility on the doorstep of the church when people aren't listening to the message of the church.

You don't think that the problem of AIDS in places like Africa has to do with the immense poverty and lack of education for a majority of the people? Why is it that people in these third world countries don't hop in their car, drive to the local convience store and pick up a box of condoms before having sex? Because the Catholic Church tells them not to use condoms? I think not - how about that they don't have a car, convience store or the money to buy food let alone a condom.

The church is supposed to give you the highest guidelines to live your life by - not reduce its moral standards because people have a hard time with them. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe its society that has it backwards in at least some of these issues? Look at one of the top TV shows now - a show about a bunch of married people sleeping around on each other. Desperate Housewives is a massively accepted and appluaded show. Should the church take a look and see that people seem to be really enamored with this show and decide to be more lenient on that whole marriage/monogamy morality thing? DH may just be a TV show and people might just watch because they think its entertaining or because some of the women are hot or whatever but its not a show based off of wild fantasy - its a reality in today's world.

Just because something becomes acceptable or a norm in society does not mean the church should lower its moral standards to meet it. You want to do something about AIDS in Africa? Get the world leaders together (and religious leaders if you don't mind mixing politics with religion) and get them to agree to stop wasting money on frivolous things in their countries and pull some of these places out of the dirt poverty that they are in. Then again that would be alot of trouble having to slash budgets, cooperate with other countries and deal with the dictators, warlords and whoever else runs these third world nations so maybe if the Church tells them its ok to use condoms then AIDS would go down, right? The answer is not to drop a box of condoms in their village and hope for the best.

The thing is, the Church already provides the answer - its just that people have become conditoned to think its unrealistic to expect someone to only have sex with one person in their lifetime.
If the church just sat idly bye and said "Sex out of wedlock is wrong. Don't do it." "Birth control is wrong. Don't use it." That's fine. That's what they believe, so they have a right to tell people this. I have no problem with the Catholic church telling people what it thinks is right and preaching the word of God.

But TO FLAT OUT LIE ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONDOMS TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF AIDS? Do you not see the difference? They are lying. They are lying to people to get them to do what they want. They are deceiving them. You don't see a problem with that? You think that's perfectly acceptable?

And listen, to be clear, this isn't some anti-religion thing. If Green Peace were telling Africans condoms wouldn't help prevent the spread of AIDS, I'd be pissed at them. Hell, if my own mother was telling Africans that, I'd be pissed at her.

Is the Catholic church telling people condoms don't prevent AIDS the sole cause of its spread? Hell no. I never said that. But it certainly isn't helping. Also, humantarian groups provide condoms to African countries. At least they try. So it's not like they have to go a convenience store.

I was born and raised Catholic. If I hadn't dumped the religion a few years back, I would have as soon as I found out about this. It's shameful. If you don't see the problem with what the Catholic church is telling people in order to further their own beliefs than I don't know what to do...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Are you saying that these people are such stauch followers of the teachings of Catholicism that they won't use condoms, but they couldn't care less about the church's teaching that you should not have sex until married. If these people are following the teachings of the church, then AIDS is not going be a problem. The reality is if you are in a monogamous relationship then HIV is not really a problem. The problem is when you (or your partner)are having sex with a other people.
Wait a second. I know a lot of very religious people. Very staunch Catholics. Nobody is perfect. Even the most devout (except the pope, I guess, according to Catholic law) slip up from time to time. Certain rules (e.g., don't eat meat on Friday during lent) are easier to follow than others (e.g., don't covet they neighbor's wife). There are plenty of good Catholics out there (I presume) who follow the majority, but not all of the rules, for whatever reason, human weakness, a slip up, whatever. I would have to think the whole monogamous/no sex til your married rule is one of the commonly broken rules by folks. It's human nature to want to have sex, especially for males. It's hard-wired in their genes. The no birth control Catholic tennet, however, is much easier to keep in line with. Hell, sex is almost always better (at the moment) sans a jimmy. So claiming that the problem is just people having sex with other people shows a profound lack of understanding of human nature.

[Sharpieman]

Wait a second. I know a lot of very religious people. Very staunch Catholics. Nobody is perfect. Even the most devout (except the pope, I guess, according to Catholic law) slip up from time to time. Certain rules (e.g., don't eat meat on Friday during lent) are easier to follow than others (e.g., don't covet they neighbor's wife). There are plenty of good Catholics out there (I presume) who follow the majority, but not all of the rules, for whatever reason, human weakness, a slip up, whatever. I would have to think the whole monogamous/no sex til your married rule is one of the commonly broken rules by folks. It's human nature to want to have sex, especially for males. It's hard-wired in their genes. The no birth control Catholic tennet, however, is much easier to keep in line with. Hell, sex is almost always better (at the moment) sans a jimmy. So claiming that the problem is just people having sex with other people shows a profound lack of understanding of human nature.
Seriously, my girlfriend is a devout Catholic and is really against using birth control, yet whenever we do the nasty she always wants to use something as birth control (which is a great thing). We aren't perfect so when we break its a smart and logical thing to use protection. The last thing we need is for a bunch of little sharpie's running around.

[Gary Gorski]

But TO FLAT OUT LIE ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONDOMS TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF AIDS? Do you not see the difference? They are lying. They are lying to people to get them to do what they want. They are deceiving them. You don't see a problem with that? You think that's perfectly acceptable?


Well this is the first I have heard of people in the church telling Africans that condoms do not prevent AIDS. Its one article and I don't know how reputible the source is. Believe it or not there are very largely circulated newspapers and magazines that fabricate stories to put the church in a bad light. I would be interested to find out more info on this and if it is true whether or not this is some members of the church making these claims or whether this is the official church "position". That in of itself is a huge difference - I certainly don't agree with or support what a few members of the church do.

[Joe Canadian]

Are you saying that these people are such stauch followers of the teachings of Catholicism that they won't use condoms, but they couldn't care less about the church's teaching that you should not have sex until married.

Yup, that is exactly what I'm saying.

If these people are following the teachings of the church, then AIDS is not going be a problem. The reality is if you are in a monogamous relationship then HIV is not really a problem. The problem is when you (or your partner)are having sex with a other people.

This is sort of what I'm talking about with the church needing to enter the 21st Century... abstence is cool and all, and a really great idea... problem is people rightly or wrongly do the deed before marriage and with multiple partners. Should we be telling them not to do this, you bet... but some won't listen... so what do we do with them? We encourage them to be protected when they have sex, we tell them the dangers and that condoms can protect you from thos dangers (for the most part).

I'm all for abstence education... but condoms need to be pushed in this situation as well. The attitude of, well you should have waited till marriage like God says... sucks to be you, really doesn't accomplish much.

[Joe Canadian]

The thing is, the Church already provides the answer - its just that people have become conditoned to think its unrealistic to expect someone to only have sex with one person in their lifetime.

Your right I have been conditioned to think its unrealistic, because... it is unrealistic. If you think right now, in the year 2005 it is realistic to assume that everyone is going to have one, and only one partner... well, then... I dunno.

[Joe Canadian]

Well this is the first I have heard of people in the church telling Africans that condoms do not prevent AIDS.

FWIW, I've been hearing about these stories for years... it isn't a new thing. I'm not sure if these instructions come straight from the Vatican or not... but the fact they aren't correcting the situation is very sad.

[SirFozzie]

Stories about this issue.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/310/53.php
http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2005/RE050146.html
http://www.condomdepot.com/learn/05-01-25.htm
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=1&DR_ID=27739

[Gary Gorski]

Your right I have been conditioned to think its unrealistic, because... it is unrealistic. If you think right now, in the year 2005 it is realistic to assume that everyone is going to have one, and only one partner... well, then... I dunno.

Explain that to me Steve - why is it unrealistic to think that a person can abstain from having sex until he or she is married? Because its hard to do? Because kids are bombarded with sex in TV, movies, video games, magazines, billboards, music...? Because you won't be the cool girl in 6th grade if you're not having sex? You think these are good things in our society?

Its unrealistic because society has decided its easier that way. And many parents don't want to miss out on watching Desperate Housewives or Sex in the City nor do they feel like explaining to their children why its not ok for them to watch a show like that so they let the kids watch. They let the kids watch movies with sex, they don't monitor their children's internet use...premarital teenage sex is now the norm in society because adults stopped caring.

There has never been a time where everyone waited until marriage for sex nor will there ever be but teens today are having sex in far greater numbers than say 15 years ago. That's why there's more teen pregnancy and abortions. That's why there's more teens contracting STDs - it's not because the church is "outdated" by preaching abstience - its because its a message that gets flat out ignored by many because its an uncool and unpopular one.

Maybe if parents and adults re-enforced the message of abstience to their children and did so with more than a "yeah, dont have sex but if you do use a condom" speech then you wouldn't feel a need for the church to throw its morality out the window to catch up with the times. Maybe we should expect more out of our children instead of less and we'd see far better results.

[Airhog]

Dont confuse the condom issue with being morally right. The church isnt teaching people that Condoms dont help stop the spread of AIDS. They are teaching that Sex outside of marriage is wrong. They also believe that birth control is wrong. Whats the problem with that? It is their religion. If you dont agree with it, then dont worship it.

[GMO]

The Catholic church has core values that it believes comes from God and therefore it cannot and will not change them. The Catholic church sees its role as passing on God's rules for a good and holy life.
It does not see it as a popularity contest.
It may try to change how it delivers its core message but it won't change that message.
Non-core ideas may change, however.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The church isnt teaching people that Condoms dont help stop the spread of AIDS.
Yes. It is. Read the articles. Do a google search. It is exactly what they are "teaching" and it's pathetic.

I think it's fine if the Catholic church teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Or that it also believes that birth control is wrong. It is their religion. I have no problem with that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The Catholic church has core values that it believes comes from God and therefore it cannot and will not change them. The Catholic church sees its role as passing on God's rules for a good and holy life.
It does not see it as a popularity contest.
It may try to change how it delivers its core message but it won't change that message.
Non-core ideas may change, however.
Is part of the Catholic church's core values deceiving its followers to not use birth control by telling them that condoms do not help prevent the spread of AIDS? I know the church was all about deception and lies back in the dark ages to keep the peasant folk in line, but this kind of stuff is pathetic and shameful. I have no qualms if the church is ant-birth control or anti-premarital sex. That's fine. It's the out right lie that has likely played some small part in the deaths of its worshippers that saddens and angers me.

I can't understand why you don't see the difference. I don't know how many other times or ways I can try and say this.

[yabanci]

letting people suffer and die from preventable deseases is perfectly fine, much preferable to letting consenting adults having sex.

death/misery -- no problem
sex -evil, evil, evil, must be stopped at all costs.

Such is the "culture of life."