PDA

View Full Version : New Pope.



Brother_McBeaner
20-04-2005, 00:47
The new pope has been elected, it is Ratzinger out of Germany.

What do people think about him? Personally I really hate him and wish he would go away.

Getz
20-04-2005, 00:55
Why do you hate him?

m1s1n
20-04-2005, 01:20
I honestly don't have an opinion one way or the other. I have no vested interest in who is/becomes the pope. Maybe if I was Catholic it would mean something to me.

arxhon
20-04-2005, 01:24
Note how old he is.

Being Pope is no easy job. Pope John Paul hung on longer than most. If you take a look (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm), most popes hang on for less than 5 years.

Yog Sogoth
20-04-2005, 01:36
I really don't care about the pope or what go's on in the Catholic world.

This new one is supposed to be very conservitive calling for a return to more traditional values. :rolleyes:

I heard on the news though that his stance on abortion is basiclly if you support or vote for any one who supports pro choice your going to hell. :rolleyes:


:rolleyes: That about sums up my opinion on this whole issue.

m1s1n
20-04-2005, 01:40
I really don't care about the pope or what go's on in the Catholic world.

This new one is supposed to be very conservitive calling for a return to more traditional values. :rolleyes:

I heard on the news though that his stance on abortion is basiclly if you support or vote for any one who supports pro choice your going to hell. :rolleyes:


:rolleyes: That about sums up my opinion on this whole issue.


Wow. Yeah, I'm really looking forward to this influential individual getting more power. As Arxhon pointed out--his age will at least ease some of the pain.

grizzly ruin
20-04-2005, 01:55
I honestly don't have an opinion one way or the other. I have no vested interest in who is/becomes the pope. Maybe if I was Catholic it would mean something to me.

I'm sure that a great many people feel the way that you do.

I was born Roman Catholic, but I am no longer a part of that religion (don't practice, and don't believe), for a long time I had the same opinion as you.

As time has gone on however, I've come to find that one should always take some interest in the people who hold great influence and sway over many.


Note how old he is.

Being Pope is no easy job. Pope John Paul hung on longer than most. If you take a look, most popes hang on for less than 5 years.



This new one is supposed to be very conservitive calling for a return to more traditional values.


Those two reasons were probably big deciding factors in choosing him to be pope.

1) He's European, means putting him in the papal office won't be too much of a change for the church, as opposed to choosing a Brazilian as some had suggested.

2) He's very conservative, and therefore probably won't start making sweeping changes, reforms or other boat rocking.

3) He's old, and probably won't be around for too long, allowing him to be a transitional pope who won't have too much overall effect on the papal office or the church, especially after such a figure as John Paul.

Kohhna
20-04-2005, 02:11
They should have gone with Pat Buckley

Brother_McBeaner
20-04-2005, 03:26
Why do you hate him?

His general conservativeness bugs me, not that all conservatives do but this one makes me want to make lewd gestures at the TV.

He was also a Hitler youth and was the leader of the Inquisition under John Paul.

Ass Goblin
20-04-2005, 04:01
He was also a Hitler youth and was the leader of the Inquisition under John Paul.


:eek: I diddn't know that. That's kinda something people should know about!

:0)
20-04-2005, 04:10
He was also a Hitler youth and was the leader of the Inquisition under John Paul.

You completely left out his history after that period in his life. Thanks.

Brother_McBeaner
20-04-2005, 04:34
You completely left out his history after that period in his life. Thanks.

I left it out because I don't know about what he did during that time. I would like to learn, so do tell.

Delicious Soy
20-04-2005, 07:13
I disagree with his tenure as 'Grand Inquisitor' (or whatever the title now is). Under his dominion access to Vatican controlled documents (including a large number of the Dead Sea Scrolls) have been made unavailible unless you were part of the catholic controlled areas of theology. One would think that if these new gospels allowed a different understanding of god, then maybe people would embrace religion in a more flexible way. Then again that would be God's will not Catholiscism's will.

All in all it was a safe choice. Given the conservative nature of the Catholic Church, thats hardly surprising.

Drabant
20-04-2005, 08:19
What's so wrong about the new Pope? He is conservative, yes, but that only means he follows the old values and what is actually written in the Bible. If your believe you can't just pick the parts of the Faith that you like, and ignore the rest because they aren't "modern". If you do that you are nothing but a hypocrite.

The argument about him being a member of Hitlerjugend holds no credibility, since almost everyone his age was a member.

I believe he is a good pope for the catholics, because he stands for their true ideals, and if you don't do that then there is no point in your movement at all. Also, it's good to see a conservative. These very few conservatives are the only beacons of hope in this dark age of wanton liberalism.

Brother Munro
20-04-2005, 08:20
Not being a Catholic I don't overly mind who is made Pope and in many ways Ratzinger (Skaven?) is an obviuos choice. I don't think it is a good one, because his frankly backwards views aren't going to increase the numbers of people joining the catholic church. I maintain that Megatron would have been a better choice. :D

Kohhna
20-04-2005, 09:01
What's so wrong about the new Pope? He is conservative, yes, but that only means he follows the old values and what is actually written in the Bible. If your believe you can't just pick the parts of the Faith that you like, and ignore the rest because they aren't "modern". If you do that you are nothing but a hypocrite.
Yes but he isn't just defending the bible but all the other **** Catholicism, has been adding on over the last 2000 years. That whole thing about Preists not being allowed to marry was only brought in 800 years after the lifetime of Jesus christ and has no support in the scriptures.


The argument about him being a member of Hitlerjugend holds no credibility, since almost everyone his age was a member.

Fair enough, thats true.


I believe he is a good pope for the catholics, because he stands for their true ideals, and if you don't do that then there is no point in your movement at all. Also, it's good to see a conservative. These very few conservatives are the only beacons of hope in this dark age of wanton liberalism.
What are you talking about "very few conservatives". The leader of the last remaining superpower is a Born-again christian. Tony Blair is a Christian and very conservative on a lot of issues. Most of the mainstream media is deeply conservative. And don't get me started on the press. If there are very few true conservatives around, those that are seem to be doing OK for themselves.

Seriously, how many more people have to die of AIDS before the church does something about its murderous policy on contraception? As long as they are using their influence to keep the availability of condoms down in Africa, Latin America and the rest of the world people are going to keep dying in droves.

Iuris
20-04-2005, 09:41
Don't do that.

He was a Hitlerjugend, I was a Communist Pioneer. I probably believed in mine more seriously than he did in his, and he had to do a lot more because of it, but both were compulsory.

I'll give the guy a chance, although I don't like his conservative bent. But then, he was a significant conservative influence on the previous pope, too, so little is expected to change.

Asher
20-04-2005, 09:50
He was also a Hitler youth and was the leader of the Inquisition under John Paul.

Well everyone was forced to join the HJ at that time. Even my grandfather. But that doesn't make him a nazi, now does it?

Anyway, I'd rather seen someone form the 3rd world becoming pope. Some one who has a link to the people and knows their problems.

First I was a little dissapointed by Ratzinger. But besides being conservative he seems to be a highly intelligent and unlike in his cold appeance in public a relly nice person, so they say at least.

I see his conservativism more as a matter of faith. It seems that he has the oppinion that either you fully belive or not at all. As far as I heard he criticised that relativism of faith (there is a god, but not exactly like in the bible). That will probably lead him into conflict with the many free- or alternative-churches that seem to pop up from everywhere. Personally I don't mind.

But it seems that he is the one who knows the church best. So he knows most of the problems that it faces today. If he is really that intelligen as they say, he will take the solution of that problems as a priority to the conservativism. In social points he seems not to be that conservative as they say. The late pope was also conservative, but I suppose more of a hardliner. Ratzinger looks to me like one who has a clear position, but still knowing reallity and the crisis of the catholic church.

Although I'm an atheist, I know a lot of the catholic traditions from my grandparents who are/were firm belivers. It'd not be bad to see it becomig more popular and less backward.

What is really disturbing though is that Ratzinger (http://www.nzz.ch/images/2005/04/19/al/newzzE7QEOI1P-12/Ratzinger-port-s.jpg) looks petty much like Imperator Palpatine (http://www.rebelshaven.com/Images/Palpatine/Palpatine005.jpg)... :eek:

Wiseman
20-04-2005, 09:58
wasnt john paul 2nd also seen as a conservative pope to begin with??? Look at the reforms he brought in.

arxhon
20-04-2005, 10:13
Holy crap! This thread's gone on for 2 pages and the flaming hasn't started?

Good show, folks. :)

Drabant
20-04-2005, 10:51
Yes but he isn't just defending the bible but all the other **** Catholicism, has been adding on over the last 2000 years. That whole thing about Preists not being allowed to marry was only brought in 800 years after the lifetime of Jesus christ and has no support in the scriptures.

I agree that from a Bible point of view celibacy shouldn't be mandatory, though it should still be encouraged.



What are you talking about "very few conservatives". The leader of the last remaining superpower is a Born-again christian. Tony Blair is a Christian and very conservative on a lot of issues. Most of the mainstream media is deeply conservative. And don't get me started on the press. If there are very few true conservatives around, those that are seem to be doing OK for themselves.


I guess the situation from where you are living is quite different from where I am living. Around here even the "conservative" media is quite liberal. You won't find any mainstream newspaper that argues against female priest, gay marriages and so on. Issues like contraception and abortion are non-issues here, we take them for granted. If people avoid using condoms, it's not because God forbids them to, because seriously, around here not even the priests believe in God.

Personally I believe that the problem with AIDS is that people sleep around and not that they don't use condoms. If people would just stick to one person they would be safe from VDs.

On another note, I don't consider neo-conservatives like Bush real conservatives. A real conservative in a nation as young as the US would still be upset about the Boston tea party.

Kohhna
20-04-2005, 11:44
I agree that from a Bible point of view celibacy shouldn't be mandatory, though it should still be encouraged.

HOnestly, why even encourage it? The freezing of the sexuality of preists at early adolescence creates a Psycho-sexual condition that is one of the contributing factors of the instance of Peadophillia among preists. Human beings have a natural urge to find sexual fulfilment, which is part of, though not neccessarily the same thing as, the urge to reproduce. You try to take that away it will find other avenues. Anyway, the church only brought in the whoile not marrying thing because of 9th century short term political and economic considerations.
Anyway, Protestant faiths allow their ministers to marry and they seem to be doing OK.


I guess the situation from where you are living is quite different from where I am living. Around here even the "conservative" media is quite liberal. You won't find any mainstream newspaper that argues against female priest, gay marriages and so on. Issues like contraception and abortion are non-issues here, we take them for granted. If people avoid using condoms, it's not because God forbids them to, because seriously, around here not even the priests believe in God.
Actually that sounds great. I'd probably move to sweden if it wasn't so bloody cold. :) Though you have to admit, that in these respects Sweden and Scandinavia are pretty unique.


Personally I believe that the problem with AIDS is that people sleep around and not that they don't use condoms. If people would just stick to one person they would be safe from VDs.
Ok thats your opinion and everything, but the statistical Sceintific and epidemiological evidence strongly suggests that a Greater access to contraception would save millions of peoples lives. The church reists this in the face of all evidence to the contrary. If governments would hand out free condoms on their National Haelth services they could save millions, but as long as the church opposes this it won't be possible in places like Brazil, where there is a huge Aids crisis going on at the moment, or large parts of Africa.

Odin
20-04-2005, 12:08
I agree that from a Bible point of view celibacy shouldn't be mandatory, though it should still be encouraged.

Why? Sex is a very healthy, natural activity. It reduces stress, and thus reduces the chances of heart disease, mental illness and strokes. It is good for your skin, great excercise etc. etc. And as Kahhna says, enforced celibacy is one of the main triggers for paedophilia (one problem the church is still not properly addressing).


Personally I believe that the problem with AIDS is that people sleep around and not that they don't use condoms. If people would just stick to one person they would be safe from VDs.

I'm afraid that you are much mistaken. There is a whole generation of people in Africa who were born with HIV. In some areas as many as 50% of people are infected. They then pass it on to their children, often without knowing they have it themselves. You say people should just "stick to one person", but if that one person has HIV (pretty likely if half the population has it), you're not safe. So what is the greater sin (if you believe in the concept of "sin") - sleeping with more than one partner, or being responsible for millions of deaths by decreeing that contraception is in some way "evil"?

Drabant
20-04-2005, 12:28
First of all I never said that sex is bad. I just said the Bible encourages celibacy. In my opinion, if you are Christian, you should live by the Bible, everything else is hypocritical. So the question of celibacy for preachers isn't my own opinion, but the opinion of the Bible, as I have read it. And as I said, it encourages, not enforces.

On the question of HIV, again, I still argue that if people (I don't mean you, I mean ALL people) stick to one person, VDs aren't a problem. Even if you carry HIV unknowingly, sticking to one person will stop it, and other VDs from spreading. And if you have kids, it usually shows before they in turn have become sexually active. It's not a concept of individuals being safe from it, but the simple fact that if people had been keeping to proper couples from the start we wouldn't have gotten the problem we have today. And if people started doing that, AIDS would practically be dead within a few generations, along with several other VDs. Now I'm a realist and I realize that this will never happen. Still it's my opinion that the VD problem comes from people sleeping around, and not from lack of protection.

Finally, I'm not even a christian, I'm just arguing what the Bible says. I don't really remember the Bible saying anything about contraception, but the view I presented there is my own, and is not related to religion in any way whatsoever.

I feel we are drifting away from the pope issue here as well, and that we need PnR back.

:0)
20-04-2005, 13:18
I left it out because I don't know about what he did during that time. I would like to learn, so do tell.

He went AWOL from the German forces in 1943...

Jo Bennett
20-04-2005, 13:22
The Bible is not the be all and end of all of Christianity. A lot of the encouragements to celibacy and related dogma come from Pauline scriptures, and there is evidence to suggest that his writing was chosen by the church in the 4th century to make up the Bible because they liked what it said. Also the encouragement to celibacy was in the context of the last days being within the lifetime of the author, which was not the case.

@ :0) I think you mean 1944

notdakuningist
20-04-2005, 18:10
I don't mind the Catholics being conservative espescially the pope, but at the same time they need to try to continue the working relationship that John Paul had with the leaders of Islam and Judaism. I'm only worried that this belief will cause more doctrine based conflicts between the Western and Eastern religions.

Edit:
not to mention the Eastern Orthadox church as well which could be instrumental in mediating conflicts in the middle east.

Inquisitor Engel
20-04-2005, 19:09
Guys - P&R is not on this version of Portent. Please try and keep things civil, this looks like it's heading down "that" road. Keep it civil, keep it clean, and keep it moist. (That is, the opposite of flame.)

Engel

Wez
20-04-2005, 19:38
Personally, the only consolation I can find with the new Pope is that he's unlikely to be Pope for that long. So far, from what I've read, he appears very conservative. Being strongly against homosexuality, contraception and abortion isnít going to win me over. In England itís unlikely to win over many people. I'm not a practicing catholic, and his influence on my life is (from my point of view) minimal to non-existent, so I'm not that worried.


What's so wrong about the new Pope? He is conservative, yes, but that only means he follows the old values and what is actually written in the Bible. If your believe you can't just pick the parts of the Faith that you like, and ignore the rest because they aren't "modern". If you do that you are nothing but a hypocrite.

The Bible is free to interpretations. A 2000year old document, that has been translated, handed down and possibly 'edited' dozens of times is unlikely to remain completely accurate. Even if it did, then it is still very free to interpretations, seeing as it's rarely very specific on issues.

You can follow what is written in the Bible and not be conservative.


Keep it civil, keep it clean, and keep it moist. (That is, the opposite of flame.)
Unless that's referring to someone who's deleted their post, where's there been anything flamy in this thread? Seems VERY civil considering the topic at hand, or is this pre-emptive modding?;)

-Wez

:0)
20-04-2005, 20:53
@ :0) I think you mean 1944

Oops, wrong date in my head. It was actually 1943, but yeah.

Brother_McBeaner
21-04-2005, 00:10
What's so wrong about the new Pope? He is conservative, yes, but that only means he follows the old values and what is actually written in the Bible. If your believe you can't just pick the parts of the Faith that you like, and ignore the rest because they aren't "modern". If you do that you are nothing but a hypocrite.

The argument about him being a member of Hitlerjugend holds no credibility, since almost everyone his age was a member.


The bible has been rewritten so many times and edited and other people's views placed into it that I don't really listen to what is written in it.

why couldn't you pick and choose your faith? The bible is wildly open to interpretation if you want to do what it says and certain parts of it are a bit backwards to follow in a modern age, (such as the stoning of disobediant children, deutronomy, 21:18-21).

I don't really hold the Nazi thing against him, I was just peeved at nazis when I wrote that.

Drabant
21-04-2005, 07:09
why couldn't you pick and choose your faith?


What's the difference between doing that and making up your own religion? Nothing wrong with making up your own religion, but is it really christianity?

Brother_McBeaner
21-04-2005, 07:30
What's the difference between doing that and making up your own religion? Nothing wrong with making up your own religion, but is it really christianity?

No one is truly christian then. No one agrees with %100 of what the bible says, simply because you can't. The bible has so many contradictions that it's funny.

In Ps.78:69, "The earth which he hath established for ever."

In Ps.102:25-26 , "The earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish."

Lord Lucifer
21-04-2005, 12:32
This is a beautiful thing... a religious discussion of differing views, devoid of apparant animosity

You guys rock :D


Don't know much about the new Pope, personally
Only concerned that his attitude towards other faiths is a tad antagonistic and could undermine the efforts of John Paul II to conciliate faiths.

Which really would be a shame :(

Samoth
21-04-2005, 13:48
My friend takes a different stance, he beleives that of recent times where the church has had reform has led to lower beleivers - and a return to hard line conservatism will give the catholic church back it's "strong" image.

I then told him that people wont take crap from the church that they would have one hundred years ago - he said people dont change, only morals do.

It's an intresting concept, but I dont think it will work.

Asher
21-04-2005, 14:24
My friend takes a different stance, he beleives that of recent times where the church has had reform has led to lower beleivers - and a return to hard line conservatism will give the catholic church back it's "strong" image.


He is right in a way. If the cath. Church would with the same speed as society does, it'd loose its credibility. An institution like the cath. Church lives from its conservatism and traditions. Today everyone interprets christianity as he likes and starts a church. I bet the variations of christian churches are so many, that nearly everyone can find the church that pleases his interessts. They only have one root, namely the bible, something that can be interpreted in various ways, such that it can't be a chain to connect them all. If the cath. church also wanted to answer everyones call it'd sooner or later split up and be one of many free-churches we see this days.
It is difined by traditions and its tradition is the only individuality and strenght it has.

In my humble oppinion the church should reform on social questions and not hinder the aid to people in need by asking useless signs of virtue of man.
If they reform the church itself, speek the marriage of priests and priesthood for women, I don't really care. It may attract more worshippers but then it would start to work in a demand & offer sort of way like everthing today.
It's unshakeable fundaments are what makes the cath. church stand out.

Drabant
21-04-2005, 15:57
Only concerned that his attitude towards other faiths is a tad antagonistic and could undermine the efforts of John Paul II to conciliate faiths.


I believe one of the reasons he was choosen so quickly is because the other cardinals believe he will do a good work at continuing John Paul II's work. Remember that he has worked very closely with the old Pope for a long time, and effectively as the Pope prior to his death.

Sojourner
21-04-2005, 16:33
Let's hope he brings european catholicism that little bit closer to the death it deserves.

I don't particularly like him but it's nothing to do with me, so long as he doesn't start winding up the world's catholics and causing animosity.

anarchistica
21-04-2005, 21:14
Pope Palpatine will turn away many from his sect before he dies in 3-5 years. My fellow Catholics in Brittain, Holland, Belgium and Germany are not happy with his election. In Germany Catholics are all but ashamed of him, though they consider him to be an Italian after living in Italy for the last 20 years.

I wonder how many people will think my av is Ian McDiarmid. :D

GAWD
22-04-2005, 04:16
I find it absolutely amazing that the election (and who has recently"retired") of the leader of the smallest nation on planet earth garners so much attention around the world.

Now to deal w/this thread's theological kiddie hour ...

On Pope Benedict the XVI, the common political terms "liberal" and "conservative" are misnomers when applied to the church's supreme pontiff. The Pope is "conservative" on SOME moral issues (i.e.: abortion, euthanasia, birth control, etc...), but he is "liberal" on SOME other issues (i.e.: Iraq War, death penalty, workers dignity, terrorism, political self-determination, etc...). So any blanket characterizations are simply unnuanced. The Pope's position is consistently pro-life (I'll deal with the slander that Church is murdering Africans in a moment). It's been my mantra on these forums in the past, and it's the mantra of the Pope: People shouldn't kill people. Notice ... I said the Pope as a generic term: the recently deceased JP II held and promoted these positions (w/the intellectual help of Cardinal Ratzinger), B XVI holds and will promote these positions, and any future Pope will hold and promote these positions. For those who really care, B XVI is a conservative as far as Catholic disciplinary and liturgical matters are concerned, nicely situated between traditionalists who seek a wholesale rollback of Vatican II to reinstate the Latin Mass and loopy liberals who promote the integration of weirdness like liturgical dance in the Mass.

About the nonsense regarding the Church's complicity in African murder due to AIDS. The church isn't around to help people have sex, which is what contraceptive distribution does. The church is charged w/promoting a lifestyle that will result in the overall health of the social body, and that means promoting the ONLY sure way of preventing the spread of AIDS ... don't have sex w/people who have it, including prostitutes (the main African conduit), mistresses, and spouses. The is the most charitable and honest approach to AIDS (guess what men and women can still contract HIV/AIDS by using a condom ... do some research). Further, the church is on the frontline w/hospital and prescription help to AIDS sufferers, especially children, the world over, especially in Africa.

Church secrecy in matters pertaining to scripture is such a farsical urban myth. If all you know about church hierarch and scholarship is what Dan Brown tells you, then you're educated in fiction. In excruciating brief, the dead sea scrolls are incomplete scriptures of a smattering of texts the church has already had access to either directly or through mentions in other sources. Further, the church allows access to all its catalogued documents; that said, cataloguing the enormous Vatican collection is a slow process for the handful of staff charged w/the endeavor.

Priestly celibacy is not an indisputable tenet of the church, unlike the doctine/dogma against ordaining female priests (sorry that'll never change either). Celibacy is a discipline, which is biblically founded, of the Roman/Latin rite (the one practiced by the Pope and the vast majority of Catholics). There are other rites of the Catholic church (i.e.: the Byzantine) under the Pope that do not utilize this discipline and there have been some individual allowances in the Roman/Latin rite for married priests. Regarding the foolishness that celibacy psychologically/medically contributes to pedophilia ... riddle me this: why is that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are NOT celibate, including some of the priests charged in the recent scandal that had closet heterosexual affairs as well? why is that the vast majority of celibate people in the church are NOT pedophiles? Be wary of scientific determinism b/c it may just be used to justify holocaust, rape, or "curing" homosexuals. No the cause of pedophilia in the church is not celibacy but a lack of fidelity to oaths and teaching (not to mention spineless "liberal" bishops, like Cardinal Law and Cardinal Mahony in LA).

On church attendance ... JP II held the exact same "conservative" beliefs that B XVI holds, and the church has grown by 30-50%. The church will continue to grow across the world. That church is becoming increasingly conservative.

metzler
22-04-2005, 05:09
Entering this thread, I must say, games-workshop brings an intelligent community together.

As a Hedonist at the moment with a strong Roman Catholic background and a germanophile, I like the new pope. Although I personally disagree with the catholic churches policies, i think its strength is in these policies of celibacy, mercy, and the ideal of earth as a 'valley of tears".

Picking an old-aged European Pope, I hope the brains of the papacy (whoever that is) chose him as a transistor, so that there is a European pope between two non-European popes (I consider Poland non-European at the moment because of the anti-god communist ideology in Poland at the time). IMO a European pope is not going to counter the increasing secularism of Europe and America, and the future of the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) is in Africa, South America, and maybe Asia. Asians are resistant to the Catholic Church due to their xenophobia (sorry for not backing this up, it would take a long time), and in South American the RCC is losing ground to Protestant faiths. The ground lost to Protestants will be hard to make up, but Africa is being carved up between Christianity and Islam, Islam from the north, Christianity from the South.

As a player of 40k and a lover of battles, I hope that the next pope is African and the Catholic theological juggernought focuses on Africa. Africa is the last easily theologically conquerable area left in the world IMO, and if the Papacy is well led (leadership 9 or more), they will focus on Africa.

Brother_McBeaner
22-04-2005, 05:29
The whole idea of a contest about converting people creeps me out a little. Shouldn't religions just place their doctrine and dogma down for people to see rather than shoving it in their faces?

Sojourner
22-04-2005, 08:18
They should, but catholics have never been about that.

With regards to catholicism promoting celibacy - not plausible, nor does it have any basis in scripture. People will have sex, so the least you can do is help protect them when they do it. Popularising lies about contraception is wrong, for a religious body or for anyone else. John Paul II's administration said that latex is permeable to the HIV virus. Unless defective this is not true.

Asher
22-04-2005, 09:16
Interessting news: As it seems around 85% of the electors voted for Ratzinger to be the new pope. That is 100 of the 115 possible votes.
Ratzinger was most likley the head of the church for the last few years when the late pope was seriously ill. The chardinals obvioulsy know that and wanted someone who knows exactly whats going on.
Maybe he can show a new face as pope. Till know he didn't fullfil the expectations of the ones who criticise him but started in a mild fashioned way. It is to soon to judge however...time will tell is suppose.

Wez
22-04-2005, 16:53
About the nonsense regarding the Church's complicity in African murder due to AIDS. The church isn't around to help people have sex, which is what contraceptive distribution does. The church is charged w/promoting a lifestyle that will result in the overall health of the social body, and that means promoting the ONLY sure way of preventing the spread of AIDS ... don't have sex w/people who have it, including prostitutes (the main African conduit), mistresses, and spouses. The is the most charitable and honest approach to AIDS (guess what men and women can still contract HIV/AIDS by using a condom ... do some research). Further, the church is on the frontline w/hospital and prescription help to AIDS sufferers, especially children, the world over, especially in Africa.

People will have sex. It's a fact of life. There's little point in trying to stop them, seeing as it's [normally] perfectly legal and not looked down on by [the majority of] society. Condoms, the vast majority of the time, stop HIV being contracted. Even so, people can get AIDS without having sex/inheriting it from the parents. It's rare admittedly, but not unheard of. Helping AIDS sufferers is all very well, but it's not fighting the causes. Stopping people having sex would be a way to limit the spread of the disease, but that's unrealistic seeing as people arenít going to stop having sex. Contraception seems to be the best realistic way to stop the spread of AIDS.


Regarding the foolishness that celibacy psychologically/medically contributes to pedophilia ... riddle me this: why is that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are NOT celibate, including some of the priests charged in the recent scandal that had closet heterosexual affairs as well? why is that the vast majority of celibate people in the church are NOT pedophiles?
Faulty logic
Most paedophiles aren't celibate: of course not, the % of celibate people is tiny compared to the number of other people. Most car accidents aren't caused by drink-driving. That's not ebcause drink-driving doesn't cause an increase in accidents though, it's because the % of people drink-driving is quite small.
Most celibateís aren't paedophiles: of course not. Not everyone who is celibate is a paedophile, just like not every who smokes dies of lung cancer. Whether being celibate increases the chances of you becoming a paedophile is the real question.

-Wez

Drabant
22-04-2005, 18:29
Most car accidents aren't caused by drink-driving.

Actually, and this is local statistics, 9 out of 10 car accidents with fatalities have atleast one person under the influence of alcohol involved. But I guess counting minor accidents you are right.

I will still state my opinion that the cause of spreading VDs is because are sleep around. The problem may be somewhat helped with the use of protection, but just as people will have sex even if they shouldn't, they will have unsafe sex even if they have access to protection.

Sojourner
22-04-2005, 19:11
So Drabant - why is it that the west, in which contraception is readily used, has a relatively low rate of HIV infection, whereas in areas such as Africa, whom generally for either religious or practical reasons don't use contraception, HIV rates are astronomical?

Contraception doesn't protect people, eh?

Wez
22-04-2005, 19:22
Actually, and this is local statistics, 9 out of 10 car accidents with fatalities have atleast one person under the influence of alcohol involved. But I guess counting minor accidents you are right.

You can replace drink driving with speeding if you wish, or anything else that increases the danger, my point stays the same.


I will still state my opinion that the cause of spreading VDs is because are sleep around. The problem may be somewhat helped with the use of protection, but just as people will have sex even if they shouldn't, they will have unsafe sex even if they have access to protection.

Uh-huh. So why aren't VDs such a big problem in the West where contraception is used a lot and are a huge problem in Africa where contraception is, comparatively, rarely used. People 'sleep-around' just as much I expect, certainly younger people do...

-Wez

Drabant
22-04-2005, 20:20
Contraception doesn't protect people, eh?

I didn't say that - read again.

Sojourner
22-04-2005, 20:30
The problem may be somewhat helped with the use of protection

'Somewhat' implies 'not much'

anarchistica
22-04-2005, 20:35
I will still state my opinion that the cause of spreading VDs is because are sleep around. The problem may be somewhat helped with the use of protection, but just as people will have sex even if they shouldn't, they will have unsafe sex even if they have access to protection.
This comment will kill the thread. I think Drabant is one of those people who think that the church spoke the truth about condoms not working very well, despite the facts showing the opposite. Also, it seem he does not get the relation between informing people about STD's and contraception and the church trying to prevent this.

Oh well, it was a nice thread while it lasted.

Drabant
22-04-2005, 21:56
'Somewhat' implies 'not much'

"Somewhat" doesn't imply "does not". AIDS is a problem even in the western world, even if we have loads of condoms easily available. How come we still have AIDS here when they are so widely available? Everyone knows about condoms, so it's not an issue of information. It's simple, a lot of people do not use condoms simply because it doesn't "feel good". And even if condoms can solve the problem, lack of their use still isn't the cause of the problem.

Let's take the driving example again. If you drive drunk, you are putting your life at risk. But if you drive at a lower speed you increase your chances of surviving when you crash. That doesn't mean that the drinking isn't the cause of the original problem.

I also have a hard time to see how the church's objection against contraception is the cause of people not using condoms. The church also objects against people having sex outside marriage, so how can you say condoms is a sin when you are already commiting a sin by having sex?


I think Drabant is one of those people who think that the church spoke the truth about condoms not working very well, despite the facts showing the opposite.

Physically or socially? But, this isn't at all my point. My point is the source of the problem, not the ad hoc solution that condoms are.

Also, I'm not even a christian, so I don't really care what the church says about this and that.

Wez
22-04-2005, 22:13
"Somewhat" doesn't imply "does not". AIDS is a problem even in the western world, even if we have loads of condoms easily available. How come we still have AIDS here when they are so widely available? Everyone knows about condoms, so it's not an issue of information. It's simple, a lot of people do not use condoms simply because it doesn't "feel good". And even if condoms can solve the problem, lack of their use still isn't the cause of the problem.

AIDS is a minute problem in the Western world compared to Africa. Contraception is the reason for this, most people will agree.

Everyone knows the cause of the problem is sex. But most people also realise that, realistically, you can't stop people doing it. Have you got a better solution than condoms? "People shouldn't sleep around" isn't an option. It's human nature and most people see nothing wrong with it.

-Wez

Kohhna
22-04-2005, 22:27
AIDS is a minute problem in the Western world compared to Africa. Contraception is the reason for this, most people will agree.

Everyone knows the cause of the problem is sex. But most people also realise that, realistically, you can't stop people doing it. Have you got a better solution than condoms? "People shouldn't sleep around" isn't an option. It's human nature and most people see nothing wrong with it.

-Wez

*APLAUDS*
Thanks Wez for again injecting some sense into proceedings.

Drabant
22-04-2005, 23:16
It's human nature and most people see nothing wrong with it.



This is getting tiresome. The church sees something wrong with it. So if you see something wrong in using a condom because the church said you can't, you have to see the wrong in having the sex in the first place.

All I can do is go on repeating myself until you still do not get my point ;P

anarchistica
23-04-2005, 00:05
"Somewhat" doesn't imply "does not". AIDS is a problem even in the western world, even if we have loads of condoms easily available. How come we still have AIDS here when they are so widely available?
A handful of kids and some crazy gays doesn't equal 25% of the population, like in Africa.


Everyone knows about condoms, so it's not an issue of information. It's simple, a lot of people do not use condoms simply because it doesn't "feel good". And even if condoms can solve the problem, lack of their use still isn't the cause of the problem.
Aside from the stupid kids, retarded gays who see it as a must to be part of a certain lifestyle, i think that even in Europe there must be people who still listen to the church and as a result of that don't use condoms.


I also have a hard time to see how the church's objection against contraception is the cause of people not using condoms. The church also objects against people having sex outside marriage, so how can you say condoms is a sin when you are already commiting a sin by having sex?
In Africa, people still believe in god and the church. In Africa, there are man who use the opinions of the church on contraception as an excuse not to use condoms. In Africa, babies and other virgins are raped because this would cure aids. In Africa, having sex while not being married is often seen as a lesser sin than wearing a condom. In Africa, the church and Bush & his buds promote "abstinence", pouring millions into ad-campaigns telling people condoms are bad and that they should just "ignore" their natural lusts. In Africa, people believe that condoms don't always work, because these ad-campaigns tell them this. In Africa, information about the use of condoms and spreading them is hampered by the church.

In Africa, 25% of the population has AIDS, because a bunch of 70 year olds in Italy believe there is such a thing as a soul and that it partially is in sperm.

Now of course there's the barbaric arab/muslim culture at work too, in addition to other primitive cultures and wars. However, all of those combined are but a drop in a bucket compared to the vile influence of the church.


Physically or socially? But, this isn't at all my point. My point is the source of the problem, not the ad hoc solution that condoms are.
Physically, duh. And ok than.

glimli
23-04-2005, 06:32
men discuss, god disposes. unless this guy has a known history of bad health its not all that unlikely that hell be alive for another 15-20 years. anyway to those who cant wait for him to die whats he done to you. you dont have to be a catholic or follow any oof theri teachings. they havent burnt anyone for at least 200 years!


as for him being hitler youth, all german boys during the nazi era were required to be hitler youth. today there would be still thousands of them alive in germany and austria. also he deserted from the german army a few months after being conscripted. if your going to hold that agaisnt him you may as well arresst every german senior citizen!


while peole do get worked up abouit the no condoms. heres the thing as well as wearing condoms they say be monogomous and dont have sex befoer marriage and preferably marry a virgin. its not theri fault if people in the third world only listen to the condom thing and ignore everything else.

its like if i told someone to never travel by sea, over sea, not to swim, or go within 20km of large body of water and forbade them from wearing life jackets. wold it be my fault if they drowned?

Lord Lucifer
23-04-2005, 08:27
I believe one of the reasons he was choosen so quickly is because the other cardinals believe he will do a good work at continuing John Paul II's work. Remember that he has worked very closely with the old Pope for a long time, and effectively as the Pope prior to his death.

Not the work between faiths.
Ratzinger's the one that protested against the inclusion of Turkey in the European Union on the basis that they weren't a 'christian country', and for all I've read of him, he seems to hold great disdain for other faiths and denominations.
There may be renewed hostile sentiments between faiths, and I'd rather not see that

Lord Balor
23-04-2005, 08:40
The Vatican wanted someone conserative who wouldn't make too many radical changes and to act almost as a temperory sit in pope (Hense the old guy with old values was quickly chosen).

Just a side note, i was really looking forwards to a Pope Urban III :D

Archaon
24-04-2005, 09:56
I'm a 29 year old roman catholic from Germany (although not german) and i couldn't care less for the new pope.

I got the whole christian upringing and went through all the stages (first communion and the other stuff which you do at a young age) because my mom was religious and wouldn't want to be considered a heathen by other people who are more "hardcore" christians.

But growing older i distanced myself from the church (not that i was ever close to it) because i began to read and did my research on religion and especially the history of the catholic church (both old and new history). I came to the conclusion that christian religion is nothing for me. I got into some huge fights with my mom about my refusal to go to church (even on christmas) because i do not accept organized religion and she firmly believes in religion and above all the church.

The catholic church is kind of two sided..to my understanding it tries to be neutral and help everyone (i think they would grant hospitality even to Hitler if it would have come to that) but on the other side they are doing much harm to uneducated people because of their beliefs and age old traditions (contraception is immoral, homosexuality is bad etc).
For this reason i think the next time i'll see a church from inside will be on official "business" such as a funeral or my wedding (but these are only because of society pressure..call my a hypocrite and i'll accept it).

Recently there were tons of reports on the new pope and something struck me as odd..Ratzinger became instantly "famous" through a theological work of his he published in 2000 in which he claimed that the roman-catholic belief is superior to all religions and people instantly assumed a new age of inter-religion strife would be to emerge. Pope John Paul II did much to further the friendship of the church to other major religions and people feared that the new one would abandon this but one of his first official tasks was to announce that he wants to continue these dialogues and deepen them.
From that i conclude that Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benedict have to be in some aspects quite different.

As to to Ratzingers HJ past.. as some already said it was mandatory for youths at that time to serve in the Nazi military and many of these were Anti Aircraft helpers, i.e. they lugged the ammo around, loaded the gun and so on. Refusal would mean punishment and i certainly don't hold it against these children who were brainwashed to believe in the Nazis (although many report that Ratzinger ditched his duty first opportunity and didn't believe in the Nazi philosophy).

Last point..i'm TOTALLY disgusted by the british press (some major "neutral" papers but mostly tabloids) calling the new Pope a Nazi-Pope, a Nazi and everything in between, sometimes distorting the facts and sometimes outright being wrong. There always was some Nazi propaganda directed at Germany, especially when something neo-nazi influenced crime happened (burning of an asylum house by Neo-Nazis or beating up a foreigner with dark or black skin etc) where they return to darkest WW2 rhetoric calling contemporary Germans Nazis, Huns and similar names but these attacks on the Pope are way beyond the line of common decency and respect.
The should be ashamed of themselves but i highly doubt such people are even abe to feel shame.

Tenoch
24-04-2005, 12:56
OKay I have a question.

The pope is elected through papal succession and supposedly the holy spirit acting through the elective cardinals.

If this is true why did not all of the cardinals vote for Ratzinger?

And if you then try and argue it was only necessary to have a 2/3 majority (iirc) then why was there the excess of 38 votes?

Lord Lucifer
24-04-2005, 13:04
If this is true why did not all of the cardinals vote for Ratzinger?
To humble the man so that he still questions and considers his actions, rather than taking it for granted that his every breath is God's will manifest

I mean, if I were God, I'd sure as hell (ah! irony!) be reminding my followers, my will or not, they're only human ;)

Delicious Soy
24-04-2005, 14:26
To humble the man so that he still questions and considers his actions, rather than taking it for granted that his every breath is God's will manifestThey have to wait to be pope, then every breath is the word of god. At least it has been since 1870.

The Judge
24-04-2005, 14:41
The "Panzer Kardinal" sounds like he could be in the news a lot more than his predacessor, but for all the wrong reasons. Should be a laugh for the non-Catholics.

Ps I do not agree with JP's and Ratzinger's calls to ban contraception in country's where there is an AID's problem. Idiotic and stubborn.

Lord Tyran
25-04-2005, 06:32
Just My 2c

What the Hell is a pope useful for. Nothing - the position is just another person to try and press their ideals upon people

a Flying Monkey would make a better applicant, than some fool with no regard for humaitarin needs in Africa

Dont like my View, welcome to the Internet
you dont have to read it

Beefstick
25-04-2005, 06:50
I guess I'll start out by saying that I'm not Catholic.

Now, as for the use of a Pope? I like the idea of a leader whose job it is to dictate moral issues instead of legal ones. In theory he should be able to act without fear of political repercussions by his divine right-type stuff. Of course it doesn't really work this way, but it's a good idea.

Now as for this current Pope, I think he was chosen to be boring. After the extreme popularity of the last pope, any real contender would be making the same mistake as following dogs and children onstage. Everybodies hopes are too high, so if you're already inevitably gonna flop, do it bigtime. That way there will be plenty of room for the next one to improve upon.

Now please insert whatever flameproof disclaimer is necessary here. I wish we still had P&R this really belongs there.

Darius Rhiannon
25-04-2005, 07:22
To the posters who have pointed out that Africa has a aids problem. I would like to point out one thing.

Aids is the most prevalent in South Africa. Fact. Botswana and South Africa both have 20%+ infections numbers.

Southern African christians are either largely Anglican or Protestant.
Pope's opinion on aids = irrelevant if you are Anglican or Protestant.
Hence saying Pope + Aids Stance + Infection rate = Bad Pope you are bein false.

This (and other things like it) is the reason for aids (and the various have sex with a virgin cure things)
http://www.g21.net/africa76.html

"Most people thought the Kenyan Professor, Wangari Maathai, would recant, or at least suppress, her previous statement that AIDS was "... formulated in a lab by a mad White scientist in the West as a tool of genocide to wipe out Black peopleŪ" when she became the first Black woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize".

Or that people prefer not using condoms (same link)
"In my hometown, for instance, there're about eighteen black medical doctors; six of them are HIV positive and two have a full-blown AIDS. Why, if AIDS education is so effective? The crux of the matter is that the rate of transmission of the HIV virus is highly determined by behavioural habits. There's a preponderant habit in the black community of resisting condom use because people feel sex with a condom is unnatural. "Flesh to flesh." "Who wears a raincoat when taking a shower?" are terms one often hears among people who disregard condom use, usually with tragic consequences."

Same link, i'm not born again, I simply do not have sex as I lack the seducing skills. I call it the personality method of birth control ;)
"Another erroneous assumption is that everyone in African communities wants to be, or is already, sexually active from early ages. This stereotypal attitude on the part of the AIDS workers who happen to come to Africa, mostly from Western-sponsored NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations), prompt negative responses from black Africans who feel affronted by the generalisation. In fact, there's a growing number of South African youth, especially girls, who -- through the influence of mostly "born-again" congregations -- prefer waiting for their wedding day for their first sexual experience. This helps in the fight against AIDS as these girls are no longer easy victims of the promiscuous tendencies that increase a person's exposure to the HIV virus. Admittedly these girls are still in a minority but it is growing and mostly educated."

Now just for public record I am not a Catholic and I think catholicism is a bit "silly" imagine a pope decreeing papal infallibility in 1870's...

I am also not really part of the African "demographic" as I am white, male, 23, university educated student. So perhaps my views on "Africans" are suspect.

Like I said, I believe I am save from Aids infection. I am to boring for women to want to have sex with me, but the eternal optimist says always have some condoms available. Only likelyhood of a scenario resulting in me becoming tainted is in an accident in which I come into contact with contaminated blood, but the SA para-medics are good at avoiding that and the blood donor society screens the blood so thorougly that it rejects donated blood from the racial groups/demographics most affected/infected group.

my 2c