Ave Papa - we have a new Pope

[The last sane person]

I dont know...I am amazed at the rate of his being made a saint so fast. Are they afraid that people will forget if they dont stick the St. in front of his name?

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by inked

New POPE likes beer! http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=34727

I was torn between the beer thread and this one, but I figured it was more on topic than my last comment or so !

Here's to a good German beer swilling POPE - check the figures on the amount delivered!

Well, it seems natural. He is, after all, German. Did you expect him to chug wine like the French?

Originally Posted by TWFM

I'll mention only one but I could mention dozens: during his first travel to Africa he said "go and multiply yourselves" (translating from italian), that is pure evil in countries like the african ones. That is not a point of view, it is morally despicable to promote procreation in countries that are already starving to death.

I notice that nobody has even tried to write one good thing he (purportedly) has done.
EDIT: Tessar has tried. I don't agree in the bit with what he said, but I have to recognize that he tried.

"Go and multiply yourselves" can have various meanings. Such as what they thought it meant. But it can also mean to profess the faith by spreading it to others, which is most likely what Pope John Paul II meant. Various phrases, etc. can have various meanings. There you have it.

Originally Posted by The last sane person

I dont know...I am amazed at the rate of his being made a saint so fast. Are they afraid that people will forget if they dont stick the St. in front of his name?

Of course not! Hard to forget someone like dear Pope John Paul II.

[inked]

I say but aren't those Canadians getting uppity!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050608...s_050608065110

What do you think will be the new Pope's reaction?

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by inked

I say but aren't those Canadians getting uppity!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050608...s_050608065110

What do you think will be the new Pope's reaction?

Allow me to let off some (yeah, right, more like 10 truckloads of) steam:
Well, I know how I'd respond! What kind of Catholics are they?!

"It is an immensely wounding part in our Catholic history to block women's ecclesiastical participation in orders. I think people have been closed to a deeper, fuller expression of their faith by having, in the hierarchy and levels of authority and decision-making, a male-only church," she said.

Doctrine is doctrine. Suck it up. And the Church is not "male-only".
Anyone mind if I take a guess at what political party she's in?
All I can do is pray...

Originally Posted by Monseigneur Serge Poitras of the Apostolic Nunciature in Ottawa

"This doesn't conform to the Catholic faith. Church teachings are clear: only men can be ordained,"

Is that clear?





I hope I don't turn this thread into a 'controversial' thread!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

sexism is disgusting, good bye...

man i can't stand right-wing politics, a plague on both your houses

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by inked

I say but aren't those Canadians getting uppity!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050608...s_050608065110

Hey, there's one American doing it too - don't get complacent

I like Merry's reaction so much I think I'll just quote it again: "Doctrine is doctrine. Suck it up." Indeed.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

sexism is disgusting, good bye...

man i can't stand right-wing politics, a plague on both your houses

First off, what do you mean "Good bye"? You didn't contribute anything.

I can't stand left-wing politics, so we're even then .

I can't believe that people expect the Church to follow the current 'fashions' in government and religion. We're not talking about some flash-in-the-pan group here. The Church has been around for a very long time--things in the church don't just change overnight to fit our instant-gratification wishes.

I'm quite disgusted with people who think the Church is old fashioned, and because of that it should choose a pope who's going to bring about radical changes. What part of "The Catholic Church" are they missing?

And once again, why should they even CARE? They're not Catholics, and apparently have no wish to be. You don't see me running around posting about how Anglicans should be running their show, or trying to tell Baptists how to preach. If a liberal president were elected, I wouldn't be running around and making an ass out of myself just because I didn't like the way he looks--I might disagree with his viewpoints, but it takes a truely retarded person to insult a leader for the way they look just because they didn't get their little cake cut the way they want it.



As for the article... These women aren't Catholics any more. They might believe the same things that a Catholic does, but defying the Church on something like this is to basically excommunicate yourself from it. That and the fact that they can't become priests without going through some kind of official training.

Idiots.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I'm quite disgusted with people who think the Church is old fashioned, and because of that it should choose a pope who's going to bring about radical changes. What part of "The Catholic Church" are they missing?

And once again, why should they even CARE? They're not Catholics, and apparently have no wish to be. You don't see me running around posting about how Anglicans should be running their show, or trying to tell Baptists how to preach.

Well said. For some reason, the Catholic Church seems to attract all kinds of commentators who are very happy to tell it what it should be doing, without themselves having any interest in the Church's central reason for existing. At the time of the Pope's election the media was full of people pontificating (how ironic ) on how the Church should modernise, how it should appeal to young people, and which bits of doctrine were now too unpopular to be adhered to. The arrogance of anyone thinking that they, or the fads of the moment, have the right to instruct the Church on doctrine is amazing. It's not so bad if they are Catholics, because then at least they have some reason to care - but if they're not it is, I'm sorry, none of their business.

This is particularly true on an issue such as women priests, which is purely an internal question; it has no effect at all on anyone who isn't a Catholic.

[Janny]

My, isn't it open rant night at Cath-soc. :P

I rather like the way the media expresses her ignorance. My favourite publication, the Guardian, suggested, for example, that the Cardinals should pick 'the first black Pope'. Not that actually having had the first black Pope already should stand in the way of progress...

[inked]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

sexism is disgusting, good bye...



man i can't stand right-wing politics, a plague on both your houses

Yeah, LCoU, right on! Just like those religious freedom zealots of socialist stripe you so love....
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/m...urches/375.htm ....

a pox on socialism is redundant, it having been proven to be worse than smallpox in its human rights history!

[inked]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Well said. For some reason, the Catholic Church seems to attract all kinds of commentators who are very happy to tell it what it should be doing, without themselves having any interest in the Church's central reason for existing. At the time of the Pope's election the media was full of people pontificating (how ironic ) on how the Church should modernise, how it should appeal to young people, and which bits of doctrine were now too unpopular to be adhered to. The arrogance of anyone thinking that they, or the fads of the moment, have the right to instruct the Church on doctrine is amazing. It's not so bad if they are Catholics, because then at least they have some reason to care - but if they're not it is, I'm sorry, none of their business.

This is particularly true on an issue such as women priests, which is purely an internal question; it has no effect at all on anyone who isn't a Catholic.

But it does matter because these folk believe that if you don't believe as they do, you are a bigot (not that they'd ever be that way, of course):

http://relapsedcatholic.blogspot.com...-churches.html
and,
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawac...3-861546f99428
and,

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05061408.html

But any opposition to their agenda and WATCH OUT- YOU CAN'T BELIEVE THAT (not we don't believe you really believe that, but you CAN'T believe that)!

[inked]

Originally Posted by Janny

My, isn't it open rant night at Cath-soc. :P

I rather like the way the media expresses her ignorance. My favourite publication, the Guardian, suggested, for example, that the Cardinals should pick 'the first black Pope'. Not that actually having had the first black Pope already should stand in the way of progress...

Facts have never stood in the way of progressivism. History shows that repetitively. For instance, the CDC sat on this data for ?reason?:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05061307.html

So, poxes are brought on themselves by socialists and other progressives! But they'd rather point to the alleged zit on your face while ignoring the ravaged visage which is themselves.

Go figure.

And God (if He existed) forbid (if it didn't interfere with human autonomy) there be moral absolutes and right and wrong (except what they feel is thus today, but check in again tomorrow, it'll change)!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Tessar

First off, what do you mean "Good bye"? You didn't contribute anything.

it's what we call a pre-emptive strike, seeing as how we all know what sort of reply you can get for stating the opinions to which you adhere

I can't stand left-wing politics, so we're even then .

this is going to drag off topic, but it's only one post, and i feel i have to answer:
let's consider the 3 aspects, shall we?
right wing: characterised by sexism, xenophobia, extreme nationalism, traditionalism and often mild forms of racism
cetnrism: characterised by ideological pragmatism, but often some environmentalism and libertarianism
left wing: characterised by egalitarianism, social unity, liberty

I can't believe that people expect the Church to follow the current 'fashions' in government and religion. We're not talking about some flash-in-the-pan group here. The Church has been around for a very long time--things in the church don't just change overnight to fit our instant-gratification wishes.

the buddhist faith has been around one heck of a lot longer, so if we were to go on grounds of "oldest is best" do we say the equality offered by buddhists is better? no, each is different, to quote the EU; "In Varietate Concordia"

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

the buddhist faith has been around one heck of a lot longer, so if we were to go on grounds of "oldest is best" do we say the equality offered by buddhists is better? no, each is different, to quote the EU; "In Varietate Concordia"

Did I say that the oldest was best? Your comment has no grounds to stand on if it's meant to refute something I said.

How does defining your vision of right wing and left wing have to do with my saying I dislike left wing the way you dislike right wing? I know what left wing stands for. Yet you don't seem to. How is it possible that all right wingers are sexist with people like Condola Rice being promoted in government by a right wing leader?

How is it possible that the Church is 'sexist' if it allows women to become nuns? Becoming a priest is a section of the Church that women cannot enter, similar to the way that a man can't become a nun.

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

it's what we call a pre-emptive strike, seeing as how we all know what sort of reply you can get for stating the opinions to which you adhere
this is going to drag off topic, but it's only one post, and i feel i have to answer:
let's consider the 3 aspects, shall we?
right wing: characterised by sexism, xenophobia, extreme nationalism, traditionalism and often mild forms of racism
cetnrism: characterised by ideological pragmatism, but often some environmentalism and libertarianism
left wing: characterised by egalitarianism, social unity, liberty

Ah, but what would a right winger say? 'Tis but your point of view.

the buddhist faith has been around one heck of a lot longer, so if we were to go on grounds of "oldest is best" do we say the equality offered by buddhists is better? no, each is different, to quote the EU; "In Varietate Concordia"

I think what Tessar meant is that the Catholic Faith has been around for about 2,000 years and we're not changing doctrine just to be "modern".

Originally Posted by Tessar

]And once again, why should they even CARE? They're not Catholics, and apparently have no wish to be.

Anti-Catholism. Figures.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by lcou

let's consider the 3 aspects, shall we?
right wing: characterised by sexism, xenophobia, extreme nationalism, traditionalism and often mild forms of racism

you forgot "tolerant" for left-wing ...

(let alone other things that I won't bring up now )

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

you forgot "tolerant" for left-wing ...

yes of course, thanks for reminding me

(let alone other things that I won't bring up now )

hmm, such as methods as put into place by certain persons who actually turned out to be right wing? (stalin? bukharin? mao? etc)

[Janny]

I'm not so sure, LCoU. The fact that Communists went authoritarian doesn't mean they went right wing. (That's the BBC's definition of 'right-wing', a synonym of 'bad'. )

[sun-star]

Authoritarianism is a characteristic of both the left and right wing; they just have different opinions on who should have the authority. Does the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" ring any bells?

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

hmm, such as methods as put into place by certain persons who actually turned out to be right wing? (stalin? bukharin? mao? etc)

Are you serious there?