Pope Benedict XVI

[Jedi Master Carr]

So there is a new Pope

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050419/ap_on_re_eu/pope_24

Was my personal choice (I wanted the Cardinal from Belgium who people say would be a reformer). Looks like they are going for a short reign as he is 78.

[Yog]

I watched this thing live on CNN. Ratzinger seemed like an obvious candidate, which is probably why he was elected so quickly.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well he is older and in line with the doctrine of John Paul. I personally don't care for some his ideas here are some thoughts on that

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050415/ap_on_re_eu/pope_ratzinger_s_roots_1

He is not very popular in Germany that is for sure. I also heard him say somewhere that liberalism has replaced Marxism. As somebody who thinks of himself as a liberal Catholic that makes me a little concerned.

[CMJ]

I think the Cardinals wanted a short reign after JPII's 26 years. So they picked an older guy thinking he wouldn't rock the boat too much.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah that is what I am thinking too. He will be a transitional pope who won't make any changes. If the Church gets a reformer it will be the next one.

[Yog]

I doubt they would elect a liberal, at least not at this time. Maybe next term. The reason I think he was an obvious candidate, because he was well liked by the cardinals and worked with pope John Paul very closely. He also speaks Italian fluently and has resided and worked at the Vatican for many years, so he knows the system, culture and etiquette. They probably did not put too much weight or thought into the controversy in Germany. They just wanted a conservative pope who can keep the system as it is.

[JMK]

Exactly, they just want someone to hold the fort while they work out which direction they want to take Catholicism in.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That is probably their reasoning. The one I think could be a reformer pope from Belgium is too young, he is 60, anyway. So maybe he will be next.

[JMK]

60 may not be too young, John Paul II was only 58 when he became Pope. There's no way of knowing how long Benedict XVI will last as Pope, but if the Belgium guy is going to be the next guy, he will certainly be of age to take it. Besides, I think the youngest Pope ever was elected at the age of 12. ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Heh true but that was a long time ago. I just think the church needs a reformer, somebody who can bring catholics back to church especially in North America and Western Europe where they are not going to church.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by JMK
Besides, I think the youngest Pope ever was elected at the age of 12. ;)

:lol

Oh man, I'd never heard that! How long was his Papacy?

[Jedi Master Carr]

well it wouldn't surprise me if it had happen in the middle ages but I am not sure who it is have to get some information JMK :)

[JMK]

It's not a fact that he was 12 when elected Pope, but it has to be somewhere around there:

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_benedictix.htm

[Jedi Master Carr]

Lol I love his history ejected, return, abdicated, returned, deposed and finally excommunicated. That must have been a fun time :p

[JMK]

Yeah, sounds like a well adjusted teenager doesn't he?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Here is another good article on him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX

He was either 12 or 20 still that was very young.

[AmazonBabe]

I'm actually very happy with the decision to make Ratzinger Pope (actually, I should refer to him as Pope Benedict XVI ^_^; ). He holds close to what Pope John Paul II taught. I hope he can be as close to the younger generation as Pope John Paul II was.

[CMJ]

What I found interesting about the teenage pope was - I never knew that Popes resigned. I was under the impression they always "served" till death.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well that was a modern tradition, back in the middle ages some resigns and others were booted out by the Holy Roman Emperor. The medival church was really messed up. Popes had children, one pope fooled around with his own sister. It wasn't a very pleasant time.

[CMJ]

Well, I have no doubt more modern Popes have had "women on the side". ;) But yeah...it sounds like it was particularly bad back in the day. :lol

[Jedi Master Carr]

Heh yeah

[CMJ]

Bennedict XVI is the 265th Pope in 1973 years. That averages out to about 7.5 years per pontificate. So if form holds - in about 2012 or so we might be looking for white smoke again.

[jjwr]

One every 7.5 years...thats not too bad.

If you check out the history on the 12yr old you end up with 5 pops in a 2 year span. Including Damasus II who only lasted 24 days!

And not only did he retire from the position he sold it to his God Father!

Very interesting stuff, I love history and its always fun to learn new tidbits like that.

[JMK]

Goes to show how JPII really outlasted the average stay of a Pope.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Only two other popes last longer Peter the first one and Pope Leo from the 1800's (I forget what number he was). It has been very rare to have on last that long.

[Doc Milo]

If this Saint's predictions are true, there will be no need for a "reformer" in this Pope or the next...

His name is Saint Malachy O'Morgair

He predicted the line of the last popes.

St. Malachy was reported to have possessed the powers of levitation, healing, and clairvoyance. While on his way to the Vatican to assume the post of papal legate for Ireland, he fell into trance and saw a line of papal reigns stretching from the successor to Innocent II and extending through centuries to the last of the line, identified as Peter of Rome. Malachy assigned short descriptions in Latin to each pope when he committed his vision to paper. These mottoes usually refer to a family name, birthplace, coat-of-arms, or office held before election to the papacy. Some of the phrases are multiple prophecies, written with ingenious word play. For example, Pius II, who reigned for only 26 days in 1503, was aptly described as "De Parvo Homine" (from a little man). His family name was Piccolomini, Italian for "little man."

Sometimes the personal history of the pope plays a part in the motto given by Malachy. Clement XIII (1758-69), who had conenctions with the government of the Italian state of Umbria and whose emblem was a rose, was called by Malachy Rosa Umbriae, the "Rose of Umbria."

The passage of time has proved doubters of St. Malachy wrong, for his prophecies have turned out to be amazingly accurate. He even prophesied the precise date of his own death, and got it right. The prophecies concern the papacy, starting with Pope Celestine II in 1143. In all, 112 popes and their characteristics are listed from 1143 to the "end of the world."

Here are descriptions of the final popes according to Malachy:


Pastor et Nauta/Shepherd and Navigator: John XXIII (1958 -1963), patriarch of Venice (a city full of sailors) led his flock to a modernization of the Church through the Ecumenical Council. John chose two symbols for this Council -- a cross and a ship.

Flors Florum/Flower of Flowers: Paul VI (1963-1978) had a coat-of-arms depicting three fleurs-de-lis.

De Medietate Lunae/From the Half Moon: John Paul I (1978-1978) had the given name of Albino Luciani or "white light." Half-way into his short reign, a lunar eclipse occurred.

De Labore Solis/From the Toil of the Sun (Labore could also be Effort, Distress, Suffering, Trouble, leading to quite a few variations. The preceding is the usual translation.): John Paul II was born during the solar eclipse of May 18, 1920.

De Gloria Olivae/From the Glory of the Olives: The Order of Saint Benedict has claimed that this pope will come from their ranks. Saint Benedict himself prophesied that before the end of the world his Order, known also as the Olivetans, will triumphantly lead the Catholic Church in its fight against evil.

Petrus Romanus/Peter of Rome: The Final Pope? "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock among many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people."

[CMJ]

I read something similar about 10 years ago about someone who propesized the line of the Pops acouple hundred years ago. The last one on his list was John Paul II(honestly don't remember how they figured out he was the one refered to). Anyways - this was big stuff in the "the world will end in the year 2000" terror.

In other words...call me cynical.

[Doc Milo]

It's good to be cynical. I was cynical when I first heard it, and I remain questioning... But the part about the Benedictine Order saynig that De Gloria Olivae traditionally saying this pope would come from their order has me a bit more convinced -- being that this was not said or printed after the election of Pope Benedict, but before his election.... (Notice in that article, the name "Pope Benedict XVI is not before the explanation of the term, as is the names of the other popes. I have other articles, and a list of the prophecies, where there are ??? for this pope, and the same description about De Gloria Olivae coming from the Benedictine line.)

There is a question of the authenticity of the prophecies in the Catholic Church, however....

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am very cynical on stuff like this. I would put it with Notradamus, people have been trying to fit his prophecies after the fact for 500 years. Not once did they get one right before it happened.

[Drake Shadowstalker]

http://img163.echo.cx/img163/1170/comparison1cy.jpg

the resemblance is uncanny, wouldn't you say?

[Sanis Prent]

Yes, and it's been noted many times.

[Morgan Evanar]

I don't expect this batch of (cardinals/pope) to address any of the issues or change policy that has been affecting people in a negative fashion, like doing something about AIDS in Africa or actually addressing the sex scandals here, South America and in Europe.

[Dutchy]

Another extremely conservatie pope.

So much for any hope of the least of liberal thinking. :\

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Another extremely conservatie pope.

So much for any hope of the least of liberal thinking. :\

If you don't like it, then get out of the church club. It's religion, not politics.

[Lady Vader]

Originally posted by Anbira Hicchoru
If you don't like it, then get out of the church club. It's religion, not politics.

I was trying to find those words, but they seemed to elude me. Now i don't need to find them. :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I think the church needs reform in the long run. For example there is a huge priest shortage in Western Europe and the U.S the Church is going to have to allow either priests to marry or let women become priests. That will happen question is, will it be 10-15 years or 30-50 and the answer to that is unknown. I would like to see some flexability on the birth control issue. I don't see why it is a problem for a married couple to use birth control. Those are really my main issues in the church. I honestly didn't see a reformer coming this pope maybe the next one who knows.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Well I think the church needs reform in the long run.

That's thinking on the wrong issues. The church doesn't need anything except to be true to itself. If its membership wanes, then narrow is the path that leads to righteousness, or whatnot. This isn't really new to Christianity. It's not a popularity contest. If somebody finds themselves to be at odds with the dogma, then they should nail their 95 theses to the door and cast their lot with the other few million denominations.

Catholics who view Benedict XVI as the Vicar of Christ, and at the same time attempt to politicize him are at an irreconcilable impass, and one cannot co-exist with the other.

[Jedi Master Carr]

But if there aren't enough priests it is a problem. Besides the whole celebate thing is nonsense. Until the 13th and 14th centuries Priests were all just about married. It only changed when the children of priests started wanted to get church land. so really it is not really a tradition, IMO. Besides there has been several times the church had to be reformed. First the Council of Trent in the Seventeenth Century which greatly reformed the church in an attempt to remove the corruption which has infested itself into it. And then Vatican Two in the 1960's which changed it again by letting people speak their own language and removing other barriers that were in place for every day people. Reform is constant because man makes the rules and human beings are very imperfect we aren't God.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Anbira Hicchoru
If you don't like it, then get out of the church club. It's religion, not politics.

I thought this was a discussion forum where people can express their opinion of the given topic? Guess I was wrong. :)

[Doc Milo]

Reform on policies that make it easier for people to worship (like allowing people to speak their own languages) is one thing. Reform on issues of morality is quite another (like reforming the church's stance on birth control or homosexuality merely to fit its morals with popular thinking). Unfortuneately, when people speak of "liberal" popes, they, for the most part are talking about reform on the church's more "hard-lined" moral stances. Morality, however, is not defined by individual choice, nor is it relative. Relativism is the road to ruin.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well my biggest reform issue is Celibacy of Priest. I think it is a very stupid practice and needs to be done soon becuase of the lack of priest. I don't agree with Birth control because I find very wrong to tell a family who has more than 4 kids they can't use Birth control. However just about all Catholics in the western world ignore the church on this issue and more and more are doing so in the Third World so I guess the church doesn't need to change their stance there :p

[Morgan Evanar]

DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.


Teenage Musician?


GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.

PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!

NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

[Wei Wu Wei]

Wow.

But I agree with Charley. Liberal and Conservative are not words that should hold much meaning in the religious context. These are both political words. I'm astounded at how many people today seem to forget that separation of church and state means not just keeping the church out of politics, but also keeping politics out of the church. Separation of church and state was meant to prevent the government from using religion as a reason to wage war or justify other such injustices by twisting sacred texts to suit their purpose.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
Ev'ry Sperm is Sacred

I :love that song :D


Originally posted by Dutchy
I thought this was a discussion forum where people can express their opinion of the given topic? Guess I was wrong. :)

You want to play martyr? A jihad on you!

I'm speaking in context of religion, not of internet forums. Seriously, if you don't like it, pull a Martin Luther and nail your 95 theses already. Cast your lot with the five bazillion denominations out there, and we'll have a friendly wager over who'll be pressing the flesh with St. Peter when it's all said and done. There's still no reason whatsoever to ensnare the dogma of the church with the mundane garbage that makes up modern political discourse.

[Jedi Master Carr]

However the church and the political arena has been tied up for the past 2 thousands years. Wars were though over religions :The Crusades the Thirty Years War. During most he middle Ages until about the 18th century the major Catholic Kingdoms of Europe (The Holy Roman Empire and France mainly) had veto power over the pope. For about 100 years the French took the pope, for purly political reasons and took him to Avignon. And this continues today, religion is brought into politics and vice versa. I remember during the election when people said Kerry shouldn't get communion because of Pro Choice voting stance. So politics and religion are entertwined. Sure I don't like I believe in a pure sepearte of Church of state but honestly only Western Europe has achieved that so far in the West.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Sure I don't like I believe in a pure sepearte of Church of state but honestly only Western Europe has achieved that so far in the West.

Who are you trying to fool again?

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
However the church and the political arena has been tied up for the past 2 thousands years. Wars were though over religions :The Crusades the Thirty Years War. During most he middle Ages until about the 18th century the major Catholic Kingdoms of Europe (The Holy Roman Empire and France mainly) had veto power over the pope. For about 100 years the French took the pope, for purly political reasons and took him to Avignon. And this continues today, religion is brought into politics and vice versa. I remember during the election when people said Kerry shouldn't get communion because of Pro Choice voting stance. So politics and religion are entertwined. Sure I don't like I believe in a pure sepearte of Church of state but honestly only Western Europe has achieved that so far in the West. What.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Originally posted by Anbira Hicchoru
Who are you trying to fool again?


I am just trying to say politics and the relgion are entertwined. Bush won because of the religious conservatives in this country that is just a fact. I heard a hundered different studies on the issue. Now unless you mean religion matters in Western Europe politics but I beg to differ there nobody goes to church. I read in France like 30% of the people actually attend it is about that in Germany and other places too. Western Europeans just aren't very religious.

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
What.

And well there I have to say I was rambling. It is late and that post wasn't very well written that is my excuse for that :p

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I am just trying to say politics and the relgion are entertwined. Bush won because of the religious conservatives in this country that is just a fact. I heard a hundered different studies on the issue. Now unless you mean religion matters in Western Europe politics but I beg to differ there nobody goes to church. I read in France like 30% of the people actually attend it is about that in Germany and other places too. Western Europeans just aren't very religious.

Fantastic. Human beings sin! This is of course a novel revelation, and I subscribe to this thread. Existence does not merit condoning.

[Lady Vader]

I don't agree with Birth control because I find very wrong to tell a family who has more than 4 kids they can't use Birth control.

Ya know... there are means and methods of keeping from having children without drugging up. How do you think I've kept from being pregnant for a year now?

The church does understand that if you have 4 children and cannot sustain another, that you can keep from having more kids. They just don't want you going about it the artificial way.

But they certainly don't shun you. They do give you a way.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That way is so complicateted hardly anybody can follow it. As I said though in this country and the west most people use birth control anyway so it isn't really a big deal, and I don't forsee the church going out there and excommunicating everybody.

[Lady Vader]

Well, I've been using it for a year now and it certainly isn't complicated. Have you tried it? Is that how you can base it's complicated? And saying "hardly anybody can follow it" is assuming quite a bit.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I don't know any catholics that use it so that is why I say hardly any catholics use. I know those who tried it including my mother and she told me that. On another issue, I really dislike the new pope's attidude on this

http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/article/2439745

Being a Harry Potter fan I don't like that attitude. Potter is not anti-christian it a make believe world where they do made up spells. It is no different than Lord of the Rings or Star Wars all in the same fantasy attitude. What is really perplexing is Pope John Paul loved Harry calling it a timeless tale of Good beating evil.

[Lady Vader]

Well I don't know any catholics that use it so that is why I say hardly any catholics use.

Well, you know one now. :p You can also count all my closest family members as they use the method as well. So, yeah, it does work if you have had the proper training and know what your doing.


As for the Harry Potter issue... yeah, I never did understand why some in the Church were all against it. I guess it's on how you interpret the stories? I for one love the stories and I own the DVDs. :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am hoping it is because they are old fashion or something. I am certain that most have never read them or they wouldn't think that way. Actually most in the Catholic church like the books it is rare to see that otherwise, which surprises me even more.

[Morgan Evanar]

I dunno what method you're referring to but the only ones that prevent disease is either condoms or a lack of sex altogether. A please, lets stop fooling ourselves about the second.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Condoms help prevent disease, they are not 100%.

[Morgan Evanar]

Yeah, they're about ~95%. So do we take the 95% percent or continue with 0%? Fact of the matter, no matter how much you may wish it, people aren't gonna stop having sex.

[Doc Milo]

The issue with birth control and the Catholic Church is referring to married couples -- their stance on unmarried couples having sex is that it is a sin for an unmarried person to have sex, period. Therefore, the issue of disease prevention when talking about birth control is not even a part of the discussion.

Well, you might say, married people might have extra-marital sex, and therefore disease prevention becomes part of the discussion -- no. Extra-marital sex is also a sin. The Church's stance: if you are unmarried, you are not supposed to have sex; if you are married, you are only supposed to have sex with the person to whom you are married. If you follow the line of reasoning here, disease prevention when talking about birth control never even enters the discussion -- since coming into contact with a sexually transmitted disease, if you follow the behavior set forth by the Church, is next to impossible.

Remember, the Church is setting a moral code. You don't "dumb-down" a moral code because people might have trouble living by it. No one said to live a moral life would be easy. According to the Christian religions, everyone is a sinner. It would be really easy if we just "dumbed-down" all morality so that no one would be a sinner -- in the eyes of man. But the Church is not concerning itself with the "eyes of man." They are supposed to be concerned with the Eyes of God.

What I hear people saying is: "Everyone is doing it, so why doesn't the church just say it's okay to do." And: "If it doesn't it's just going to keep losing its membership." I say a smaller, purer church (not that anything is perfectly pure, except God. All humans are sinners) is preferable to a large church that has no moral compass.

Let's take the law, for example. Do we change the law and say it's okay to shop lift because a certain segment of the population has a problem and can't stop shop-lifting? Or, it's okay to infringe on an artist's copyright because a whole lot of people can't stop downloading music over the internet? We can get the crime rate down to zero if we just make everything legal, but will it make the world a better place to live?

Morality is not relative. There is a right. There is a wrong. It is the Church's job to clearly define what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God (based upon the inspired Word of God, the Bible). It is the individual's choice to follow what it teaches or not to follow what it teaches. It is not the Church's job to define right and wrong based upon the whim of the populace. Regardless of how popular it is, or how many members the Church stands to lose, or how many priests it fails to recruit. What good does it do to gain the world and lose one's soul?

[Jedi Master Carr]

That isn't my beef with the church, as I said most catholics I know ignore it anyway :p My problem is celebacy is an outdated issue that needs to be changed, especially with the priest shortage problem.

[Doc Milo]

Celibacy for priests: Remember, according to the Catholic Religion it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. Therefore, in order for a priest to have sex, he must be married. Therefore, we are not just talking about celibacy, we are talking about priests getting married. The church ran into a lot of problems when it allowed priests to be married -- conflicts of interest arose between the good of the church and the good of the priest's family. Not only on a financial side -- the ownership of property and assets, etc... but also on a personal side. A priest is supposed to be there to help the parishioners of the church, be a councilor when needed, be a surrogate father when needed. This is asking a lot of another person (the spouse) to have to handle. Other denominations handle it, yes. But they also run into these conflicts as well.

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
The issue with birth control and the Catholic Church is referring to married couples -- their stance on unmarried couples having sex is that it is a sin for an unmarried person to have sex, period. Therefore, the issue of disease prevention when talking about birth control is not even a part of the discussion.

Well, you might say, married people might have extra-marital sex, and therefore disease prevention becomes part of the discussion -- no. Extra-marital sex is also a sin. The Church's stance: if you are unmarried, you are not supposed to have sex; if you are married, you are only supposed to have sex with the person to whom you are married. If you follow the line of reasoning here, disease prevention when talking about birth control never even enters the discussion -- since coming into contact with a sexually transmitted disease, if you follow the behavior set forth by the Church, is next to impossible.

Remember, the Church is setting a moral code. You don't "dumb-down" a moral code because people might have trouble living by it. No one said to live a moral life would be easy. According to the Christian religions, everyone is a sinner. It would be really easy if we just "dumbed-down" all morality so that no one would be a sinner -- in the eyes of man. But the Church is not concerning itself with the "eyes of man." They are supposed to be concerned with the Eyes of God.

What I hear people saying is: "Everyone is doing it, so why doesn't the church just say it's okay to do." And: "If it doesn't it's just going to keep losing its membership." I say a smaller, purer church (not that anything is perfectly pure, except God. All humans are sinners) is preferable to a large church that has no moral compass.

Let's take the law, for example. Do we change the law and say it's okay to shop lift because a certain segment of the population has a problem and can't stop shop-lifting? Or, it's okay to infringe on an artist's copyright because a whole lot of people can't stop downloading music over the internet? We can get the crime rate down to zero if we just make everything legal, but will it make the world a better place to live?

Morality is not relative. There is a right. There is a wrong. It is the Church's job to clearly define what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God (based upon the inspired Word of God, the Bible). It is the individual's choice to follow what it teaches or not to follow what it teaches. It is not the Church's job to define right and wrong based upon the whim of the populace. Regardless of how popular it is, or how many members the Church stands to lose, or how many priests it fails to recruit. What good does it do to gain the world and lose one's soul? Exactly. We have a failure of simply admiting reality. The reality is that people are having sex, and it's getting them killed. I guess what you're trying to say is that because they're sinning the church sees this as ok and does nothing?

That's reprehensible. So which is the greater sin? Letting hoardes of people die because of a failure to even discuss something that could save millions of lives or having sex? Because there are people that marry, have the disease, die, and the partner remaries, thus passing the disease on. I'm foggy on the stance of that but the fact of the matter is it happens.

[Shawn]

Idealism is nice and all, but refusing to accept reality is foolhardy.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

If you test positive, condom or no, why would you ever try to have sex again in the first place? That's no different in my eyes than playing around with a loaded gun.

[Morgan Evanar]

AFAIK testing in Africa pretty much doesn't happen unless it's done by the employer.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Celibacy for priests: Remember, according to the Catholic Religion it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. Therefore, in order for a priest to have sex, he must be married. Therefore, we are not just talking about celibacy, we are talking about priests getting married. The church ran into a lot of problems when it allowed priests to be married -- conflicts of interest arose between the good of the church and the good of the priest's family. Not only on a financial side -- the ownership of property and assets, etc... but also on a personal side. A priest is supposed to be there to help the parishioners of the church, be a councilor when needed, be a surrogate father when needed. This is asking a lot of another person (the spouse) to have to handle. Other denominations handle it, yes. But they also run into these conflicts as well.


It was only done for fiancial reasons, the church was afraid of losing its property. It is still stupid, IMO, no other domination does it and it works fine for all of them. Besides there is a huge priest shortage as there is they have no choice within the next 50 years they will have to.

[Cat Terrist]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
Exactly. We have a failure of simply admiting reality. The reality is that people are having sex, and it's getting them killed. I guess what you're trying to say is that because they're sinning the church sees this as ok and does nothing?

That's reprehensible. So which is the greater sin? Letting hoardes of people die because of a failure to even discuss something that could save millions of lives or having sex? Because there are people that marry, have the disease, die, and the partner remaries, thus passing the disease on. I'm foggy on the stance of that but the fact of the matter is it happens.

You know I agree with you - What the church has failed to realise is this is NOT a morals issue. Diseases like AIDS are a secular one and as such, cant be solved with head in the sand "MONOGOMY" head in the sand attitudes. It's these exact same failings Jesus came to rid of. AIDS is not a simple problem and simple preaching and simple solutions aint going to cut it.

Yes, I'm quite sure everyone knows AIDS could be slowed big time with a rigourous one partner or abtenance approach. But everyone knows this is the real world and people have sex. Thence, the proper approach is a call to one partner relationships - but failing that, condoms, education and even more education about the facts of the disease and how it is transmitted and exactly how deadly it is, ways to avoid, what to do if suspect you got it etc.

The other fact is the church needs to realiseJesus freed us of the requirements of rules and you cant force morals onto non believers. Instead, it's a case that we need to realise Jesus was so appealing that we WANT to live lives like He wanted. It doesnt work any other way. And, I think that the church also needs to realise when your dead, it's it. No more chances. Read that as you will.

Condom use, if it's a sin (and I very much doubt God sees it that way), can only be backed up by a passage about 'seed spilling' in one of the first books of the Bible. When in fact, it has nothing to do with 'wasting sperm'. It was about the deliberate disobeying on an obligation that when you understand the context, shoots down the 'wasted seed' argument entirely. It was never about that at all.

And personally, I'd rather see someone use a condom and maybe later come to Christ than die a truly horrid death. Ever seen what Aids does to someone?

[Doc Milo]

The other fact is the church needs to realiseJesus freed us of the requirements of rules and you cant force morals onto non believers.

First off, Jesus did not come to free us of the requirements of rules; rather, He freed us of the requirements of man-made rituals.

Second, no one is trying to force morals on non-believers. The Church's stance on things is for its membership, and anyone who wishes to be a member of the Catholic Church. I don't see why "non-believers" would care what the Church thinks about anything. I don't see why any other religions would care what the Church thinks on anything. It doesn't affect them. That's like saying the USA can't force other countries to abide by the US Constitution just because a Supreme Court decision upholds a law that some other countries disagree with. It doesn't affect them.

The Church's stance is one based in morals. It is not the Church's job to make public policy. If you are a Catholic, the Church says, this is how you are supposed to act. If you act in that manner, then you greatly decrease the possibility that you will come into contact with sexually transmitted diseases.

If you choose not to act in that manner, then you should take the precautions necessary to decrease your risk. That is common sense. But once you choose to act in a manner contradictory to what the Church teaches, you then enter the realm of secularism, and you should educate yourself on how to reduce your risk.

Yes, the reality is, people are having sex outside of marriage. But I have to ask, how many of these people having sex outside of marriage are saying to themselves: "I'm about to have sex with you even though I'm not married to you, but I can't use birth control because I'm Catholic and the Church forbids it." The Church also forbids that person from having sex outside of marriage! Yet, s/he doesn't seem to worry about that? The bottom line is, people having sex outside of marriage don't want to be judged wrong for doing so, and people using birth control don't want to be judged wrong for doing so, therefore, they think the Church needs to change it's moral stance to suit their morality.

The Church will not turn its back on you if you do get sick, it won't excommunicate you for acting in ways it doesn't condone. If you seek its help, it will help.

But don't expect it to compromise, as a matter of policy, it's stance on morality. The Church is not a government. It's realm is teaching morality. If you choose to act immorally, then you get your information from some place else. If you choose to act immorally, however, and do end up getting sick, the Church will not turn it's back on you, either.

[Cat Terrist]

Dont you think that the minor moral problem of condoms is exceeded by the bigger moral problem of millions dying needlessly? That's what this really about - condoms are such a minor problem if you compare them to the problems prevention of access gives in return. I would also think that they would realise the abortion rates would go down too - and that's an issue the church SHOULD be fighting, not whether you can or cant put a piece of rubber on your willy during sex. Technically, my wife and I were sinners until this year because we used birth control other than natural methods. This is ludrious. The Catholic church seriously suggests we'd go to hell becuase we decided to not have children until now?!?

And I can tell you it irritates my Catholic friends, who would put most Christians to shame for the strength of their beliefs and their actions, that they cant see any strong moral reason they are prevented from birth control.

And dont you think the Church opposing condoms and birth control outright for anyone rather than just its members is trying to force their values on others?


First off, Jesus did not come to free us of the requirements of rules; rather, He freed us of the requirements of man-made rituals.

Oh... so we need to go back to Levitius and stoning adulterers, cleansing rules and sacrifices? Jesus didnt free us from that?

Not like those things were man made rules, were they?


If you choose to act immorally, then you get your information from some place else. If you choose to act immorally, however, and do end up getting sick, the Church will not turn it's back on you, either.

really. They wont, hmm? Actually, they do. It's however the good people at the coalface of the AIDS tragety who would rather care like Jesus did who wont abandon the sick and dying. I dont remember Jesus saying anything to do about birth control. In fact, I straight out dont rememebr the Bible having any say on birth control, exept for the aforementioned doubtful passage.

So why are condoms a moral issue again? Oh yes, it might lead to more unmarried sex.

Might.

So does dancing apparently.

[Doc Milo]

Dont you think that the minor moral problem of condoms is exceeded by the bigger moral problem of millions dying needlessly? That's what this really about - condoms are such a minor problem if you compare them to the problems prevention of access gives in return.

And the Church prevents access how? The Church is not a government. It does not make public policy. It takes a stand on moral grounds. It tells it's members the way in which they are supposed to act in order to live a more moral life. In no way does the Church prevent people from access to any kind of birth control. It doesn't have that power. It is a Church, not a government. It does not make public -- or even social -- policy. It makes, at the most, Church policy.


Technically, my wife and I were sinners until this year because we used birth control other than natural methods. This is ludrious. The Catholic church seriously suggests we'd go to hell becuase we decided to not have children until now?!?

Well, according to Christian, and Catholic belief, everyone is a sinner. And the last I heard, the use of birth control was not a Mortal Sin.


Oh... so we need to go back to Levitius and stoning adulterers, cleansing rules and sacrifices?

Of course not. But Jesus did not support anarchy either. Jesus taught us, through his example, how to live a moral life. You don't think Christ gave us a set of moral values? Aren't moral values rules?


And dont you think the Church opposing condoms and birth control outright for anyone rather than just its members is trying to force their values on others?

No. For the simple reason that The Church is not a government and does not make public or social policy. The Church opposes outright, for anyone, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, murder, theft, a whole host of other moral issues. But if you are not a member of the Catholic Church why would you care what the Catholic Church says about anything? The Church does not make law, enforce law, or make public or social policy for any country around the world. It tells you what it's stance is on a moral issue. It is not forcing anything on anyone! So now just voicing an opinion (with the "attitude" that said opinion is fact) is the equivalent of one trying to force its values on another? Please.

[Morgan Evanar]

You're ignoring the part where if the Church decided to say "hey people down to the south of us, start using condoms" a lot of people would and, at the very least, it would save thousands?

I care what the Church says BECAUSE IT WOULD SAVE THOUSANDS, POTENTIALLY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. AND THAT HUMAN AND ECONOMIC IMPACT HAS AN EFFECT ON ME.

[Kieran Devaneaux]

See, this is why I do not consider myself a member of any of the world's organized religions. I believe there is a God, I think Jesus was more than just a prophet and teacher - which is what the Jewish faith believes, if memory serves - but all this organized religion crap, especially Catholicism, is a big turn-off.

The problem I have with Catholicism is that while some of the things they have as their doctrine is a good idea, I agree with the people who have said that a great deal of it is outdated. The Catholic Church, IMHO, is an organization still living in the Middle Ages. This is the 21st century, people. So the highups in the Church need to pull their heads out of their butts and realize that while all these rules and rituals they have are tried and true, this is the future, and all this ritual is unnecessary. In essence, I think they need to wake up and smell the coffee. Or whatever passes for coffee in Catholicism - if they're anything like the Mormons, they don't drink caffiene. (I don't know if this is true or not.)

[Doc Milo]

You're ignoring the part where if the Church decided to say "hey people down to the south of us, start using condoms" a lot of people would and, at the very least, it would save thousands?

So, let me get this straight: The Catholic Church says that you shouldn't have sex before marriage, or sex outside of marriage, and the "people down south" (to use your phrase) ignore this and behave how they want anyway. But somehow, these same people don't use birth control or condoms because the Catholic Church says not to and if the Church told them to wear them, they would do so. Is that about right?

Doesn't seem to hold up to logic, IMHO. Why ignore one moral and hold steadfast to the other?

Another "Let me get this straight": It seems to be your contention that because the Catholic Church is against the use of any unnatural means of birth control, that it is responsible for the deaths of thousands, even millions. I'd like to know, just where does personal responsibility for ones own actions come into play? AIDS, and other STDs are behaviorly spread diseases. An individual is responsible for their own behaviors. The Church has laid down a guideline of behaviors to live a more moral life; if an individual chooses to ignore those guidelines, then that individual is responsible for the consequences of his/her actions. It's not like the Church is encouraging people to go out and have promiscuous sex and telling them not to use condoms while they do. The Church is consistant with it's stance. Don't have promiscuous sex. Have sex only with in the confines of marriage, and only with your spouse. Use only the natural means of birth control.

Now, to say that this ignores reality -- that people are going to have sex -- is ludicrous. Yes, people are going to have sex. But people choose to have sex -- it's not like human kind is no better than animals in heat, with no control over their libidos. Two things separate us from the animal kingdom: our intellect, and our self-control. If our intellect tells us that promiscuous sex is the reason for the spread of STDs and AIDS, then that intellect should also tell us that to stop the spread of these things, we halt the behavior that spreads them. We have self-control over our bodies to help us in that effort.

To say, people are going to have sex -- the church should change its moral stance on it to fit the times is ridiculous. Morals are supposed to be steadfast. They don't change because people are having trouble living up to them. People who wish to live a moral life are supposed to change their behavior to meet the moral code; the moral code is not supposed to change to incorporate immoral behavior.

[Morgan Evanar]

Doesn't seem to hold up to logic, IMHO. Why ignore one moral and hold steadfast to the other?One is a built in impulse to continue the species. The other is a completely manmade construct. Guess which one is easier to use? Guess which one saves lives? Guess which is easier to ignore? Guess which will happen anyway?

Your arguement simply fails to stand up to reality. Can't you see that?

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
One is a built in impulse to continue the species. The other is a completely manmade construct. Guess which one is easier to use? Guess which one saves lives? Guess which is easier to ignore? Guess which will happen anyway?

Your arguement simply fails to stand up to reality. Can't you see that?

I'd say his argument has plenty of merit, actually. Whatever happened to holding people accountable for their own actions?

[Doc Milo]

One is a built in impulse to continue the species. The other is a completely manmade construct. Guess which one is easier to use? Guess which one saves lives? Guess which is easier to ignore? Guess which will happen anyway?

Your arguement simply fails to stand up to reality. Can't you see that?



Your argument would hold true only if mankind was no better than animals. Mankind, however, does have the power over itself to control its base instincts. We do it all the time.

[JMK]

Originally posted by Anbira Hicchoru
I'd say his argument has plenty of merit, actually. Whatever happened to holding people accountable for their own actions?

Of course Doc's argument holds logic. Our ability to think IS what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. They don't resist impulses...they pretty much can't resist impulses. We can. And we do, and I beg to differ, our ability to hold off from doing something stupid because we have an impulse has saved many more lives than reacting on gut instinct. Who here has wanted to slug their boss in the face on an impulse, but thought otherwise? Countless other instances can be listed where our ability to reason has saved us from a lot of extra trouble.

I'm not a terribly religious person, but to suggest that the church, any church should soften its stance on certain issues just because people take the quick, easy, profitable, gratifying, whatever route is just ridiculous.

[Cat Terrist]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
To say, people are going to have sex -- the church should change its moral stance on it to fit the times is ridiculous. Morals are supposed to be steadfast. They don't change because people are having trouble living up to them. People who wish to live a moral life are supposed to change their behavior to meet the moral code; the moral code is not supposed to change to incorporate immoral behavior.

Mate I'm no scholar, but that's exactly what the Church has done over issues like womens rights, Church and state etc, sometimes kicking and screaming.

In this case, the Church needs a reality check. What's morally more abhorrent, allowing millions to die or keep on going with a dodgy dogma?


No. For the simple reason that The Church is not a government and does not make public or social policy

2004 US Election begs to disagree with you. By the fact they have very powerful people sitting on their pews every week, it most certainly CAN not only influence, but also dictacte public and social policy. In fact, when you bascially have religious parties like Family Forst in Australia that are barely disguised arms of Assemblies of God and in fact are in a position of being able to tell a Govt after July 1 what it needs to do to assure of it's support in Parliment.....

Yeah, I'd say the Church can and does have the ability to remake social and public policy in it's image. To say otherwise is fallacy. The influence the Church has directly or indirectly is immense.

And, I might add that in countries where the religion is Roman Catholicism, the Pope's words have almost the force of law over the parishoners. Also, when a bull of Papal Infallacy is declared, this basically tells 1.1 billion Catholics the article in question can not be challenged by anyone.

I add a Papal Infallacy bull is NOT a decree the Pope is infallible. It is a decree that the article is totally and utterly church belief and can not be changed in any way, as it is said to be unarguable. Homosexuality is one of these Infallibility decrees. Condoms is not.


I'm not a terribly religious person, but to suggest that the church, any church should soften its stance on certain issues just because people take the quick, easy, profitable, gratifying, whatever route is just ridiculous.

There are some thigns a church should not compromise on. There are other's it should see reality. Sex has always been seen as a task, when it is in fact one hell of a lot of fun with the right person and somethign to be enjoyed and an expression of feeling and passion, not turned into an ogre.

Secular should certainly pull it's own head out of it's bum and see sex is far too cheap and offhand now in their veiw. The Church should see it's attitude isnt supported by the Bible and could do with a reality check. The two should meet somewhere in the middle.

[AmazonBabe]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
I dunno what method you're referring to but the only ones that prevent disease is either condoms or a lack of sex altogether. A please, lets stop fooling ourselves about the second.

I use the Billing's Ovulation Method, along with a device called Persona that records the levels of hormones when I am ovulating and when I am not. Does this mean I have to stop having sex during the times of ovulation: yes (unless I want to become pregnant). Does this mean I have to be completely celebet during my married life: hell no. The times I have to abstain are short, and like Doc and JMK said above, what seperates us from the animal kingdom is the ability to reason and take control of our basic impulses.