Pope Benedict

[KhorTose]

Who is over the top? You MS! You posted a link to a website that was malicious if not intent, at least in deed.

 

Sorry Laurence, but everything on the web page that MonkeySee posted seems to be true. Just google each item and you will find a reference for the information. I am afraid the word malicious does not apply to what is true. Truth seldom has an evil intent. In fact, this secular web site is only interested in the sexual improprities of the Popes, and if you really want to do a bashing of Popes you only need to study any history text on their political machinations in Europe and elsewhere. A lot of historians say the dark ages where only dark because that period of time was under the rule of the Church.

 

I too think you are to senitive on this subject. Hell, I would have shot back that the Church is one of the West's oldest institutions, and in 2000 years of its history, of course it has made mistakes. Heck the USA is only 200 years old and look at all the things we've done that we are not proud of. Another line I might have taken was to list all the things the church and various Popes have done for the great benefit of mankind. Finally, I would have pointed out that since recorded history and in every society know to modern men, there is a need for religion to explain the unknown, to unite members in a common bond, to give a set of common morals (laws), and to comfort the sick, dying and grieving. When you look at all of the religions people have believed in and compare them the Catholic Church, the church has not done that bad a job fullfilling its role as described above.

 

Now if you will excuse me I have to cut the heart out of my latest captive and examine his entrals in order to know when to reinvest in the stock market.

[Guest laurence]

What do I know about the Church? I'm Jewish.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

What do I know about the Church? I'm Jewish.

Your postings come across as if you were a staunch Catholic.

[Guest fountainhall]

En route to Africe, the Pope has once again stressed the Catholic Church position on the use of condoms not being appropriate in the fight against HIV/Aids. But now, according to the BBC, he adds that distribution of condoms "increases the problem." Apparently he did not elaborate - presumably because he can not.

 

If there is one doctrine that gets my back up against the Catholic Church in this day and age, this is it! To me it is lunacy that flies in the face of all known evidence - medical and otherwise. Can any Catholic explain this to me in rational terms?

[Guest xiandarkthorne]

Our "brilliant", "kindly" new ex-Nazi pope's thinking is quite easy to understand.

 

No condoms = no random sex with multiple partners if you are afraid of getting AIDS.

More condoms = more random sex with multiple partners since you don't have to be afraid of getting AIDS.

 

Unfortunately, it is precisely that kind of mindset that is going to kill more people than it saves. It is exactly like the argument against sex education...what they don't know about, they won't be tempted to try.

[Bob]

While I acknowledge the forum is to discuss any issue anyone wants, it does amaze me to find a discussion/argument about the Catholic pope(s) on the site (this is Gay Thailand, isn't it?).

 

Being raised a Catholic, I could add a lot of commentary but I won't (let's put it this way, Jesse Ventura had it right, he was just too dumb to say it in public). I spent a lot of negative energy disbelieving most of the horseshit coming out the Church between the time I was 15 and 25; since then (a long time ago), I'd rather discuss the theory of plumbing, how they make paper bags, or anything else.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Can any Catholic explain this to me in rational terms?

The Catholic church's position for the no condoms is that their view sex is for procreation only, although the church acknowledges that sex is pleasurable, the purpose is for procreation and anything sexual that interferes with that is against church law. So, no masturbation, no gay sex, no contraception of any kind, except the ridiculous "rhythm method", and no "spilling the seed" outside the woman's vagina. I believe the ulterior motive is so that the church will have a continuous replenishment of members.

[Bob]

Okay, I'll jump in for just one comment.

The "rhythm" policy by the Church is absolutely illogical and inconsistent with its other teachings. The Church tells you that sex is only for procreation and, while you can get your jollies out of it too if you're main intent is to make a baby, just exactly then what is the rhythum deal? The rhythm method is a way to prevent pregnancy by not having sex around the time of ovulation (the release of an egg during a woman's monthly cycle). So, the deal is to intentionally have sex with the specific intent to not make a baby while your having sex. Go figure, then, why it's immoral to have sex without having the main purpose being procreation. They can't explain it because their position is flatly stupid.

 

My mother had her 11th kid when she was 43. Thereafter, she had two miscarriages and the doctor told her that she had to go on birth control or she would likely die if she had another miscarriage. But she couldn't do that - being a friggin' "sin" to the church . My dad, who knew the Bishop, got special written dispensation from the Bishop for my mother to go on birth control (and he only got that because he knew the Bishop very well). What a friggin' crock of shit.

 

The notion that a bunch of celibate old men ought to tell married people how and why they should have sex is rather laughable.

[Guest laurence]

Why not? Sorry, but that's a complete cop out!

 

Yes, maybe so. But when I visit a "Beer Bar" I prefer to relax,exchange pleasantries and some gossip among friends and not enter into heated discussions and arguments with those at the next table. I like my beer cold, my friends cool and my boys hot. But sometimes too much beer gets me going.

[Guest laurence]

Your postings come across as if you were a staunch Catholic.

 

If one does not stand up for others, no one will stand up for me.

[Gaybutton]

no one will stand up for me.

Bingo! Right again . . .

[Guest]

I and probably many others have been subjected to many years of lies & other general religious propaganda during our schooling.

 

After that, I almost feel an obligation to campaign against the evil views of some of the main religions which are common in the West & the middle East.

 

I'm not quite sure what moral authority a former Nazi & leader of a backward intolerant religion business has which allows him to be critical of gays.

Practically of course, it is not "morals" at stake. The real issue is ensuring Catholics breed as much as possible so the world's no 1 religion business can increase it's market share.

 

 

 

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Okay, I'll jump in for just one comment.

The "rhythm" policy by the Church is absolutely illogical and inconsistent with its other teachings. The Church tells you that sex is only for procreation and, while you can get your jollies out of it too if you're main intent is to make a baby, just exactly then what is the rhythum deal? The rhythm method is a way to prevent pregnancy by not having sex around the time of ovulation (the release of an egg during a woman's monthly cycle). So, the deal is to intentionally have sex with the specific intent to not make a baby while your having sex. Go figure, then, why it's immoral to have sex without having the main purpose being procreation. They can't explain it because their position is flatly stupid.

 

My mother had her 11th kid when she was 43. Thereafter, she had two miscarriages and the doctor told her that she had to go on birth control or she would likely die if she had another miscarriage. But she couldn't do that - being a friggin' "sin" to the church . My dad, who knew the Bishop, got special written dispensation from the Bishop for my mother to go on birth control (and he only got that because he knew the Bishop very well). What a friggin' crock of shit.

 

The notion that a bunch of celibate old men ought to tell married people how and why they should have sex is rather laughable.

Your post illustrates the nonsense of the birth control issue very well. The fact that your mother was able to get permission to commit what is a sin for every other woman is a point. Although, I totally believe starting on birth control was the right thing, how is it that a bishop can decide it was ok for her? The rhythm method, according to the church, is ok because the "seed" is not being spilled outside the vagina. The problem with the system is that it is effective only 77 to 80% of the time, a much lower rate than condoms or other methods. Women's menstrual cycles are not always regular. The whole issue of birth control in the Catholic church is pure and simple crap.

[Bob]

The whole issue of birth control in the Catholic church is pure and simple crap.

 

We certainly agree on that.

 

But I hate to leave it there as, by saying that alone, that implies that many/most of the other teachings of the Catholic church are not pure and simple crap. And that'd be untrue, at least in my personal reality.

 

[Guest fountainhall]

But I hate to leave it there

 

Lots of things about lots of religions bug me, but another Catholic doctrine I completely fail to comprehend is that of original sin. I resent the fact that any child should be saddled with this mental burden - "sorry, my boy, but the first man in the world disobeyed God by eating the fruit of a forbidden tree and so you inherit that guilt and must work throughout your life to purify yourself."

 

I googled the Catholic Dictionary to make sure I had this right. This is what it says:

 

"According to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life."

 

Mastery of my passions? Exemption from death? Who do I have to thank for not having that lot thrust down my throat?

[Guest lvdkeyes]

We certainly agree on that.

 

But I hate to leave it there as, by saying that alone, that implies that many/most of the other teachings of the Catholic church are not pure and simple crap. And that'd be untrue, at least in my personal reality.

I hope I wasn't misunderstood to think that I meant that was the only part of the Catholic church that I think is pure and simple crap. We could go on forever discussing the crap taught by the Catholic church.

[Guest fountainhall]

he adds that distribution of condoms "increases the problem." Apparently he did not elaborate - presumably because he can not

 

I am glad that several European countries have condemned the Pope's comments in no uncertain terms.

 

French foreign ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier said: "While it is not up to us to pass judgment on Church doctrine, we consider that such comments are a threat to public health policies and the duty to protect human life."

 

In Berlin, German Health Minister Ulla Schmidt and Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul said in a joint statement: "Condoms save lives, in Europe as well as on other continents. Modern assistance to the developing world today must make access to family planning available to the poorest of the poor - especially the use of condoms. Anything else would be irresponsible."

 

Dutch Development Minister Bert Koenders said it was "extremely harmful and very serious" that the Pope was "forbidding people from protecting themselves. The Pope is making matters worse."

[Guest MonkeySee]

..... another Catholic doctrine I completely fail to comprehend is that of original sin. I resent the fact that any child should be saddled with this mental burden - "sorry, my boy, but the first man in the world disobeyed God by eating the fruit of a forbidden tree and so you inherit that guilt and must work throughout your life to purify yourself."

The church has that covered and it is called baptism. It washes away original sin. Of course, all you heathens that are not baptized go straight to hell. I love the annulments the church issues. I know a lady with three children that wanted to remarry. The bishop gave her an annulment, no problem. I wonder what that cost? What happens to the kids? Are they now little bastards?

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Does everyone remember "limbo"? It was the place where newborn babies who died before baptized went. Several years ago the Catholic decide limbo didn't exist for some reason. What happened to all those babies?

[Guest fountainhall]

The church has that covered and it is called baptism

 

In all my years, I never knew this was the reason for baptism! So why is it practiced in other Christian religions?

[Guest laurence]

Does everyone remember "limbo"?

 

Yes, I remember the limbo.I thought it was a dance? How low can you go?

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Yes, I remember the limbo.I thought it was a dance? How low can you go?

LOL, Limbo, not THE limbo.

[Gaybutton]

What happened to all those babies?

Maybe now they're in Purgatory.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Maybe now they're in Purgatory.

Purgatory is for people who have sinned, but the sins were not severe enough for them to land in hell.

[Gaybutton]

Purgatory is for people who have sinned, but the sins were not severe enough for them to land in hell.

I see. Ok, then maybe they're in a Burger King in Nacogdoches.