Guest lvdkeyes Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 VATICAN CITY (March 12) - Pope Benedict XVI has acknowledged Vatican mistakes over a Holocaust-denying bishop and his efforts to reach out to ultraconservatives, saying in a highly unusual critical review that he was saddened that even Catholics attacked him with open hostility. The pope made a personal analysis of the case in a letter to the world's Catholic bishops made public by the Vatican on Thursday, seeking to end one of the most serious crises of his nearly four-year papacy. He said failure to detect the bishop's background by simply consulting the Internet was an "unforeseen mishap" that caused tensions between Christians and Jews and raised questions about his own interest in friendship between the two religions. He said he is saddened that even Catholics who should know better "thought they had to attack me with open hostility." Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the letter — released in six languages — was "really unusual and deserving of maximum attention." Benedict acted to limit damage, as he did when he said he was "deeply sorry" over remarks in 2006 about Islam and violence that caused a storm in the Islamic world. The latest crisis began when Benedict lifted the excommunications of four ultraconservative bishops, including British-born Bishop Richard Williamson. Williamson had denied in an interview with Swedish TV broadcast in January that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. He said about 200,000 or 300,000 were murdered and none were gassed. Benedict said Williamson's views were an "unforeseen mishap" that made his efforts of "mercy" toward the excommunicated bishops seem like a repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews. "That this overlapping of two opposing processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the church, is something which I can only deeply deplore," he wrote. He thanked "all the more our Jewish friends" for understanding his commitment to friendship. Benedict defended his attempts to bring ultraconservative faithful loyal to the anti-modernization movement of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre back into the church's fold. But he acknowledged that "another mistake, which I deeply regret" was made in not properly explaining his intentions and the limits of the procedure and that some groups had accused him of seeking to "turn back the clock." "That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and this became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept," Benedict said. But he said the church cannot be indifferent to a movement that counts 491 priests, 215 seminarians and six seminaries. "Should we casually let them drift farther from the church?" he asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Not to step on your "rosary beads," lvdkeyes, but I am not much for organized religions. Many of the popes throughout history have been a lot less than "holy." An interesting website about popes throughout history is at: http://www.geocities.com/missus_gumby/papal.htm I am not sure how much of it is accurate. I am sure it depends on your bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest laurence Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Do you prefer disorganized religions? Lots of them around. As far as the interesting website, it is obvious the bias of the writer who proclaims himself an atheist. Just more Pope/Catholic Church bashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Not to step on your "rosary beads," lvdkeyes, but I am not much for organized religions. Many of the popes throughout history have been a lot less than "holy." An interesting website about popes throughout history is at: http://www.geocities.com/missus_gumby/papal.htm I am not sure how much of it is accurate. I am sure it depends on your bias. LOL, I threw away those beads many years ago and I agree with you regarding organized religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Do you prefer disorganized religions? Lots of them around. Things are not all either/or. Religions were designed to control the masses, they served that purpose to a degree, but most, if not all of them, have evolved into money making organizations. People can certainly be spiritual and do good things for others without the religions with all their mysticism and preaching hell, fire and brimstone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Just more Pope/Catholic Church bashing Methinks the present Pope should ponder a bit more before he speaks and acts - or get himself some more savvy advisers. How could anyone seriously believe that lifting the excommunication of this Holocaust-denying jerk would achieve anything but a worldwide outcry!! And this is not the first time the Holy foot has been put in the Holy mouth! The fact is that Benedict, in his previous existence as Cardinal Ratzinger, was Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a theological arch-conservative defendant of Catholic orthodoxy. The smiling countenance the world has seen since his elevation to the papacy is in stark contrast to the zeal with which he pursued his earlier institutional role. This included defending and reaffirming Catholic doctrine, including - let us not forget - teaching on topics such as birth control and homosexuality, and jurisdiction over cases involving clerical sexual misconduct. So I would assume he bears at the very least - and probably a great deal more than that - some responsibility for the notorious cover-ups of the many child sexual predators in the priesthood. Sorry, laurence. I don't believe this is Catholic bashing, any more than my comments on another thread about the movement to canonize Pius XII. These are facts. I am sure there are counterbalancing facts which I would certainly like to hear - but unfortunately I am not aware of them. So maybe those who consider this to be "bashing" might enlighten us. I am no Catholic, but I recall being intensely moved by the pastoral simplicity, that extraordinary smile and the warmth and joy that seemed to radiate from Pope John Paul I, and being similarly saddened when he died after only a month in office. I happen to believe the world will be a better place if the next Pope fits that mould - a pastor rather than a political animal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest laurence Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Pope Benedict just went on record saying he should have Googled the errant Bishop before he put his foot in his mouth. I suppose the Church has now officially entered the 21st century. As far as Pope/Catholic bashing that best describes the BS posted by MonkeySee. The Church/Pope is an easy target for anyone who wishes to sling some mud for whatever motivates them. As far as those who believe that organized religion is to control the masses, I wonder what the alternative is? Perhaps something like that espoused by the Nazis under Hitler or the Communists under Stalin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 As far as those who believe that organized religion is to control the masses, I wonder what the alternative is? If controlling the masses was not the intent of religion, what was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaybutton Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 If controlling the masses was not the intent of religion, what was? Well, so far it seems to be great for provoking wars, justifying murder and torture, wearing interesting clothing, molesting young boys, and acquiring more money than Madoff ever dreamed about. "The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music." - George Carlin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 As far as Pope/Catholic bashing that best describes the BS posted by MonkeySee. Sounds like I hit a nerve Laurence. Sorry to step on your toes, but the Catholic church is just so easy to bash. I will go to confession, say three hail mary's and an our father and light a candle. I am sure the website I linked has some bias and most probably some BS. The national enquirer publishes a lot of BS, but you would be surprised how many times they get things right. Would you like to talk about the BS that the your church has put out through the centuries? Lvdkeyes is right on when he said religion is to control the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest laurence Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Oh, I thought is was the Jews controlling the masses. You know, the kind of propaganda that Hitler and his ilk would promulgate to bash them. Same as some posters herein seem to enjoy in regards to the Pope and Catholic Church. Easy to blame for all the ills of the world. Oh, that explains it! The National Enquirer. Now there is the last word on the truth. Say no more, all is clear; you are forgiven MS for the church bashing but never for reading the National Enquirer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Easy to blame for all the ills of the world Too true! Especially as it is a huge worldwide organisation with a long and not always distinguished history. But countering alleged "bashing" just by bashing the bashers merely serves to highlight their views. How about some real discussion here and counter-arguments, laurence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Laurence still has not given me a reason for religion other than to control the masses. I think the comment about the Jews is out of line. I wasn't questioning the purpose of only the Catholic religion, but all religions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaybutton Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I think the comment about the Jews is out of line. I don't agree with his post at all, but regarding that comment, the way he uses it within his post, I believe he was being sarcastic, not serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogie Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 The Jews have a long history being successful businessmen, often in the financial sphere. That is going to antagonise those of an envious bent. Sometimes the envious ones resort to lies, discrimination or worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaybutton Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 The Jews have a long history being successful businessmen The problem is the people who think that only the Jews are successful businessmen and also think that all Jews are successful businessmen. People say that as if it's some sort of conspiracy. The part I have never understood is why they end up hated for it. Suppose instead people started saying the Buddhists are the successful businessmen. Would they end up being hated for it? I guess if you become a successful businessman, the last thing you would want would be to be associated with any particular group. Imagine if people were saying the Ku Klux Klansmen are the successful businessmen. To me, people who use this as an excuse for hatred have managed to come up with the most absurd possible reason to hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Suppose instead people started saying the Buddhists are the successful businessmen. Here in Thailand it's the Chinese Thais who are targeted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest laurence Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Laurence still has not given me a reason for religion other than to control the masses. I think the comment about the Jews is out of line. I wasn't questioning the purpose of only the Catholic religion, but all religions. Sorry lvdkeyes, I have no intention of giving you any reasons for existence of religions. It is up to you to determine for yourself and apparently you have made that determination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest laurence Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Too true! Especially as it is a huge worldwide organisation with a long and not always distinguished history. But countering alleged "bashing" just by bashing the bashers merely serves to highlight their views. How about some real discussion here and counter-arguments, laurence? I simply dislike anyone who bashes another, particularly if it has to do with someone's religion, ethnic background, race etc. The MS post with allegations concerning Popes who reigned hundreds or thousands of years ago was over the top. Comparable in my mind to the type of crap the Nazis used against the Jews. Kind of like the stuff you read on Baht-Stop. Even something as mild as GBs mention of "interesting clothing" in reference to the Pope is a snide remark. Didn't realize I was bashing the bashers! And I am not a philosopher, theologian, historian, debater, or a know-it-all so not inclined to arguments and counter arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaybutton Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Even something as mild as GBs mention of "interesting clothing" in reference to the Pope is a snide remark. What makes you so sure I was referring to the Pope? Seems to me your own bias is showing with that statement. I might have been referring to anything ranging from a Rabbi's robes to Mormon underwear, even the orange trappings of a Buddhist monk, or plenty of other types of "interesting clothing" reserved for religious purposes. The fact is, I was referring to the specialized trappings of all the organized religions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 The MS post with allegations concerning Popes who reigned hundreds or thousands of years ago was over the top. Laurence, what allegations did I make concerning your precious popes? I simply posted a link to a website and the reader can determine how true it may be. Who is over the top? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest laurence Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Laurence, what allegations did I make concerning your precious popes? I simply posted a link to a website and the reader can determine how true it may be. Who is over the top? Who is over the top? You MS! You posted a link to a website that was malicious if not intent, at least in deed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Sorry lvdkeyes, I have no intention of giving you any reasons for existence of religions. It is up to you to determine for yourself and apparently you have made that determination. Right, I can't think of any other reason either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Who is over the top? You MS! You posted a link to a website that was malicious if not intent, at least in deed. I think we will have to disagree. Have you heard anything about the first amendment? Seems YOU are a bit sensitive about the subject and way over the top, in my humble opinion. You believe in your holy water, heaven, hell, purgatory, miracles and the saints. For me, I am off to see the wizard. I will click my ruby red slippers three times and be in Kansas before you know it. Same same, but different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I have no intention of giving you any reasons for existence of religions. It is up to you to determine for yourself Why not? Sorry, but that's a complete cop out! I had not read the website posted by Monkeysee till now. Since those who objected to it have only trashed it as 'Pope/Church-bashing', let me say that I don't actually agree with the sweeping generalities implied at the start. I think we have to remember not only that most of these alleged "monumental indiscretions" took place many centuries ago (when others in power were arguably as guilty), but also there are some conclusions which go too far by drawing a false implication arising from an act of the Papacy. One example. It is wrong to suggest that the Pope or the Church was responsible for all the young boys who were castrated so they could become Church singers. True, for centuries the Church did ban women 'performing' in Church. That certainly resulted in the rise of entrepreneurs who encouraged parents - usually the desperately poor for whom the payment was literally a lifesaver - to hand over their male offspring in the hope that the one in a thousand who ended up as a performer would make so much profit that it covered the costs of those who didn't make the grade and whose lives were ruined. Indeed, by the 18th century, the successful castrati who appeared in Italian opera earned even more cash and adulation than most pop singers of today. So, if one 'fact' is wrong or misleading, then I wonder how many others? But to redress the balance a bit, I quote from the recent best-seller The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins starts with "the widespread assumption which nearly everybody in our society accepts - the non-religious included - that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect." He then quotes the writer, Douglas Adams, another atheist and author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. "Why should it be perfectly legitimate to support . . . Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion on about how the universe began, about who created the universe? . . . No, that's holy! . . .We are not used to challenging religious ideas . . .everyone gets frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet, when you look at it rationally, there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us they shouldn't be." So for those whose response is always about "bashing", why no reasonable debate, guys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
