Pope To Resign

[Bob]

It might be helpful, Jovian, if you actually read the post I responded to and then read my response. Please don't twist that poster's words or mine.

 

I agree with you 100% that the Church (and any other outfit) that advocates against use of condoms is entirely ignorant and, in a way, assisting in the spread of aids and other diseases; however, that's not what the poster said.  What he said was that the Church's teachings on birth control led to millions of babies being born who later died of starvation or aids.  A rather big difference from what you said.

 

And, yes, there was not-too-distant post (January 2nd to be exact - I didn't want to take the time to go find it but did anyway) where a poster argued that (and I'm quoting here):

"if it had not have been for the original band aid and all the lives it had saved, how many children that have died of starvation and disease since then would have actually been born ??
would it have been better to leave them to their own devices as i personally dont think what band aid did has been that benificial to africa in the long run, sure there will have been a few success stories over the years, but as i said before just how many children have died for no reason other than the fact that they were born."   

The poster essentially was arguing that those who helped children live in third-world country were essentially responsible for many of them dying later of starvation or disease.

 

And I responded essentially the same way to that poster.

[firecat69]

I will be happy to change my post from murder to just responsible for millions of deaths.  Not sure what difference it makes.

 

As for their good deeds many of those are in fact helping the babies from starvation etc that should have never been born. Is the Church responsible for all of them? Of course not.  But they are responsible for the spread of Aids by any members of the Church who followed their teachings and likewise responsible for many babies born into a situation where they will surely starve.

 

So IMHO a large percentage of their good deeds mean nothing because they were responsible for many of the problems.

 

And by the way if they told someone it was ok to fire a gun at someone , they would be partially responsible for murder.

 

So I ask you what is the difference.  The Church Hierarchy is extremely well educated and they have to be aware of what they are causing.  Yet no one in that same hierarchy questions their teachings.  

 

When I was a Catholic boy I couldn't eat meat on Friday. They changed that and they can change anything they want and find a reason for it.  The question is why are their no great leaders in the Church to question these outdated dictates.

 

They seem to be intelectually unable to do what they know is right.   

[Guest Jovianmoon]

It might be helpful, Jovian, if you actually read the post I responded to and then read my response. Please don't twist that poster's words or mine.

 

I agree with you 100% that the Church (and any other outfit) that advocates against use of condoms is entirely ignorant and, in a way, assisting in the spread of aids and other diseases; however, that's not what the poster said.  What he said was that the Church's teachings on birth control led to millions of babies being born who later died of starvation or aids.  A rather big difference from what you said.

 

And, yes, there was not-too-distant post (January 2nd to be exact - I didn't want to take the time to go find it but did anyway) where a poster argued that (and I'm quoting here):

"if it had not have been for the original band aid and all the lives it had saved, how many children that have died of starvation and disease since then would have actually been born ??

would it have been better to leave them to their own devices as i personally dont think what band aid did has been that benificial to africa in the long run, sure there will have been a few success stories over the years, but as i said before just how many children have died for no reason other than the fact that they were born."   

The poster essentially was arguing that those who helped children live in third-world country were essentially responsible for many of them dying later of starvation or disease.

 

And I responded essentially the same way to that poster.

 

I did read it, and while I agree that Firecat69's use of the term 'murder' is somewhat emotive, the effect is the same. He may have been emotive and passionate in his claim (nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't misrepresent facts or another person's argument), but it was, nevertheless, a fair claim.

 

As for your quote, I stand corrected. A person has actually argued what you suggested has been argued, and therefore I should not have claimed that such a thing has not been claimed or argued in this forum. But that claim wasn't in this thread which was started after the date you cite - we are discussing the topic of the thread at hand, are we not? Rather than data-mining to validate our own arguments?

[Guest fountainhall]

When I was a Catholic boy I couldn't eat meat on Friday. They changed that and they can change anything they want and find a reason for it.

 

This is precisely what I do not understand. Why is it that certain "truths","practices" call them what you will, can indeed be changed, and yet others are absolutely cast in stone. From what I have read, Paul VI was very seriously considering overturning the Church's traditional views on birth control. John XXIII had set up a commission of six non-religious experts to advise the Church on contraception in light of new medical developments re the birth control pill etc. Paul VI then enlarged the Commission to 58 and included married couples and laywomen. It was then increased again to include about 16 bishops.

 

The majority opinion in the Commission's Report was that certain forms of birth control should be permitted for married couples. At the time, it was confidently predicted that Paul VI would 'change the rules'. Two years later, there was a huge outcry when he accepted the views of the minority and issued the encyclical Human Vitae reaffirming the Church's traditional stance.

 

Had John XXIII lived longer, my view if that he would have come to a different conclusion and the whole birth control debate would now be a non-issue.

 

I'm not a Catholic and merely look on as a curious bystander. But I find it ridiculous that all 'myths' - for surely that is what most of what is said to have been said in the Old Testament are - come down through time as irrefutable truths. The problem, I suppose, then is: which myths do you take on board and which do you discard? And if you do discard some, how can you stand before your parishioners and state unequivocally that the others remain valid?

 

Who'd be a Cardinal at this time?

[Bob]

When I was a Catholic boy I couldn't eat meat on Friday. They changed that and they can change anything they want and find a reason for it.  The question is why are their no great leaders in the Church to question these outdated dictates.

 

A lot of Catholics didn't know that the incredibly stupid rule was territorial....it only applied to the US.  People in Detroit could perfectly legally go over to Windsor on Fridays and have a steak, just as my uncle in Tucson could hop over the border and eat meat on Fridays.  What was worse than the stupidity of the rule itself is that they taught us (at least in the 50's) that violating the rule was a "mortal" sin, meaning you went to hell for doing it unless the priest at confession gave you a break.  Any religion that bases its rules on fear isn't worth following in my view.

 

With respect to the "new" pope, it likely won't make any difference given the rigidity (and stupidity) of the Church's rules.  And the fact that the Church is run by a fairly small number of very old men ought to signal that reasonable policies are not likely around the corner.  Some day - we won't live to see it - Catholic and other churches will likely fade into oblivion as they slowly are doing in all developed countries.  Education and knowledge always seems to be the enemy of anybody spinning a fairy tale.

[Guest thaiworthy]

I'm not a Catholic and merely look on as a curious bystander. But I find it ridiculous that all 'myths' - for surely that is what most of what is said to have been said in the Old Testament are - come down through time as irrefutable truths. The problem, I suppose, then is: which myths do you take on board and which do you discard? And if you do discard some, how can you stand before your parishioners and state unequivocally that the others remain valid?

 

I saw a movie last night that might help explain some of this and the mystery of the origins of a messiah, and namely, Jesus Christ. If it is a myth, then this movie could put things in better perspective. If the man really lived, then who was he and why did he become the famous and fashionable son of God?

 

The movie is "Oz, the Great and Powerful." On it's second night, the theatre was almost full for the 16:45 showing. I enjoyed the movie, but not until I realized a certain plot design that outshone the special effects, costumes, scenery, makeup and especially direction, (which was weakest for me). The movie went to great lengths to characterize the Wizard as a cheap parlor-show magician, capable of deceit, chicanery and fraud, all placed in a setting of a typical, carnival sideshow. The Wizard is in awe of Thomas A. Edison and admires him for his scientific and technical workmanship. He wants to be like Thomas Edison, but is lacking in self-esteem until he arrives in the Land of Oz. The resolution in the story is his realization that he can indeed be that man. But it only happens after some gentle prodding from the people of Oz and his own disciples, which aren't very munchkin-like, but still rather original in character to make the story charming enough on its own. Where it shines brightly is the analogy to religion and the will of people to put their trust in their leaders. And even more alarmingly, belief in Oz's disciples, that although he is only a fraud, he can become a great fraud and lead Oz into triumph against evil (witches in this case).

 

Perhaps Jesus Christ did walk on water. And maybe there was a scientific explanation for it. Was it truly his calling, or was he convinced of that?

 

If you want to enjoy the movie for other reasons, it may be a letdown, but I think to understand the Greatest Story Ever Told, you have to examine more modern stories as well.

[Guest fountainhall]

A lot of Catholics didn't know that the incredibly stupid rule was territorial....it only applied to the US.

 

It also applied to the UK. I remember my mother constantly going on about how difficult it was to get a decent piece of fish on a Friday because the Catholics had ordered it all!

 

I'm not sure I agree with Bob about it not mattering who becomes Pope because of the rigidity of the Church rules. John XXIII certainly set in motion changes to lots of rules with Vatican II. John Paul I looked as though he intended the Papacy to revert back to spiritual leadership where people actually mattered. But either he died after little more than a month (most likely) or was bumped off (conspiracy theory material). Since then, the arch conservatives have ruled. If the Cardinals pre-Conclave deliberations and the Holy Spirit moves them, just maybe there will be a reformer who will start to bring the Church more up to date. 

[Guest fountainhall]

If the man really lived, then who was he and why did he become the famous and fashionable son of God?

 

Even nowadays, surely there are few who doubt that Christ actually lived! There is a wealth of historical evidence to prove that to the satisfaction of even atheists! Let's remember it's not only the world's Christians who believe that but also the other two monotheistic religions, including 1.6 billion or so Muslims. You can fool some of the people . . . etc., but surely it takes some mighty con trick to fool 56% or so of the souls on this planet!

 

As to the second part, again a vast treasure trove has been written through the ages that this is what the man named Jesus and those who followed and came after him truly believed. I suppose you either believe it or you don't. Since Islam does not believe it, then two thirds of the world does not accept it.

[Guest thaiworthy]

Ha ha oh my it just gets better and better as news has just surfaced that since 2008 the Catholic Church / the Vatican are the sole owners of an apartment block which houses the largest gay Sauna in EUROPE

 

I've already posted this story. Please see separate thread.

[NIrishGuy]

Apologies, i didn't see that post - point me in the right direction if you would, where's the delete button, I am looking but don't see it anywhere obvious ( or I may just be being blind of course !)

[Guest thaiworthy]

Apologies, i didn't see that post - point me in the right direction if you would, where's the delete button, I am looking but don't see it anywhere obvious ( or I may just be being blind of course !)

 

I only beat you by 15 minutes. And we both beat Fountainhall, who probably hasn't got out of bed yet.

 

There is no delete button. Follow my example, above. Just replace text with the word delete. It helps if you say "pretty please delete with sugar on top" so Jomtien knows you are asking nicely. He has this thing about doing extra work unless you sweet-talk him into it. Shameful, I know.  B)

[NIrishGuy]

I feel his pain, I try to get away with the bare minimum of work everyday myself and usually manage it quite well most days too !

 

And no delete button - shameful behaviour ! who came up with THAT idea ? :-) Oh, that wasn't quite please and pretty please delete my post as I'd intended it to be it seems ! opps :-)

[Guest fountainhall]

And we both beat Fountainhall, who probably hasn't got out of bed yet.

 

Me? Up anywhere near 7:23 am? Never - unless I have a plane to catch!

[Guest jomtien]

There is no delete button. Follow my example, above. Just replace text with the word delete. It helps if you say "pretty please delete with sugar on top" so Jomtien knows you are asking nicely. He has this thing about doing extra work unless you sweet-talk him into it. Shameful, I know.  B)

 

I can assure you that jomtien doesn't give a rats ass about politeness!  It was only due to other posters complaining about civilised behavior (behaviour), grammar and spelling that he even took notice of such things!  Always remember, jomtien is the one that sits here and chuckles to himself when people talk about proper behaviour (behavior) in gogo bars!

[kokopelli]

Francis I; I couldn't think of a better name, myself. But a bit too old, even older than I.

Although I wonder if it is Francisco since he is a Latino?

[Guest]

Does anyone know what the new pope will be like.

 

Another homophobic fascist who will try to impose his immoral views on the rest of the world? Or a much needed reformer?

[NIrishGuy]

"Will he be another homophobic fascist who will try to impose his immoral views on the rest of the world"

 

?? Why is there any other kind of Priest or Cardinal - if so I haven't met them.

 

Just like the Father Ted episode where Father Ted is trying to convince people that priests are not likeNazi's and says "oh no, you've got us all wrong, Nazi's dress all in black and go round telling people what to do all day, whereas priests..........Oh, right fair enough so :-( lol

[Guest fountainhall]

It was odd! I woke last night and couldn't get back to sleep. So I turned on the TV just as the new Pope was making his address to the crowds. Must be sign of something 

 

Listening to various commentators this morning, I am surprised that many are indicating a return to a simpler, more spiritual papacy of the people. The new Pope certainly seems to be a man of his people in Buenos Aires - he lives in a small apartment, cooks for himself, takes public transport instead of a limousine etc. And with his choice of name and his first words "Buona sera!" he endeared himself to the crowds in Rome.

 

It reminds me of the election of the humble reformist John Paul I. But he died after only 33 days at the age of 65. Francis is 76. If he is a reformer, he doesn't have much time. And yet, the last reforming Pope was John XXIII who was 77 at his election and achieved a vast amount in less than 5 years before his death. So maybe change will come.

 

On the other hand, Francis is a Jesuit and the Jesuits are amongst the most strict order in Catholicism. Its founder Ignatius Loyala is said to have claimed “Give me a child for his first seven years and I will give you the man.” In one lengthy discussion about a so-called “Jesuit Vatican connection” on the site listed below, one participant suggests

“The Jesuits are like the SS of the Catholic Church, They maintain order”

 

http://members.tripod.com/sword_of_the_spirit/jesuit.htm

 

It’s far too simplistic to assume from this that Francis will be not be a reforming Pope. But they will be interesting times.

[firecat69]

From what I have read he is a Doctrine Conservative which leaves little hope for enlightenment .  They will continue to be at least partially responsible for millions of deaths every year.

 

Did anyone really think anything would change?

[Guest fountainhall]

Given that the arch-conservative Benedict created more than half the cardinals who voted - No! But it looks as though the sword will be wrapped in a more benevolent smile!

[KhorTose]

The Joke to me is how everyone is talking about what a humble man he is because he avoids the rich trappings that come with being the Pope, how he pays his own bills and does not take Vatican cars, and what a common touch he has.  How come no one is mentioning his 17th century mind???

 

[Guest fountainhall]

Wonder what will happen when he meets his country's President next week - she's a woman!

[KhorTose]

Wonder what will happen when he meets his country's President next week - she's a woman!

Well, that is exactly who he may be talking about as she seems to have several screws missing.

[Rogie]

ARGENTINE president Cristina Kirchner has scathingly branded Falkland Islanders "squatters" after they sent a resounding message that they wish to remain British in a referendum yesterday.

 

In her first public comment on the referendum, the outspoken president dismissed the vote as a "parody" and thanked Argentinians for their "monolithic opposition".

She said the referendum, where residents voted in favour of remaining a British overseas territory, was "as if a group of squatters had voted on whether to continue to occupy a building".

Speaking at an event at the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires, she added: "We reaffirm our commitment to dialogue in accordance with the UN.

"To achieve a solution that also included the interests of those who live on our Malvinas islands."

 

She quoted British Foreign Office minister Hugo Swire as saying that the referendum result didn't change the situation "from a legal point of view".

Her acerbic words follow a near unanimous vote, with 99.8 per cent of the 1,672 eligible voters in the disputed South Atlantic archipelago voting Yes.

Only three of the 1,517 valid ballots were No votes.

 

You can read more, plus the bonus of seeing this virago displaying her charms, at:

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/383929/Argentine-president-dismisses-Falklands-vote-as-a-parody-and-calls-islanders-squatters

 

Pope Francis Election Highlights 'Frosty' Relationship With Argentina President de Kirchner

 

Addressing the new pope, she (Mrs Kirchner) said: "In my name, that of the Argentine government and representing the people of our country, I want to salute you on the occasion of your election as the Roman Pontiff of the Universal Church.

 

"It is our desire that, as you undertake the leadership and guidance of the Church, you should have a fruitful pastoral work carrying out such great responsibilities in pursuit of justice, equality, fraternity and the peace of humankind.

 

"I forward to your Holiness my esteem and respect."

 

Despite the warm words, the country's media was quick to point out that the new pope had a history of confrontation with Ms Fernandez and her predecessor as President and husband, the late Nestor Kirchner.

 

The main point of friction with Argentina's current ruler has been same-sex marriage, which Ms Fernandez's government legalised in July 2010.

 

Commenting on the matter at the time, Cardinal Bergoglio said: "Let us not be naive - this is not simply a political struggle, it is the aspiration to destroy God's plan."

 

For his part, Mr Kirchner went so far as to describe Bergoglio as the "real representative of the opposition" during his time in power, while the Church was critical with the President's "strident" style.

 

In a snipe at Bergoglio, Mr Kirchner reportedly said: "Our God is everyone's, but careful because the Devil also reaches everyone - those who wear trousers and those who wear cassocks."

 

Despite their differences, Bergoglio called for the Argentine people to pray for Mr Kirchner when he died in October 2010.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/13/pope-francis-argentina-president-de-kirchner-relationship_n_2870736.html?1363213509&utm_hp_ref=uk

 

 

As the new Pope has a sky high in-tray, l would hope he keeps his thoughts to himself over the long-running Falklands saga.

 

Later: Wishful thinking! It seems he's likely to be pestered by Mrs Kirchner according to recent history, plus he has a track record of outspokeness.

 

See also the video clip in the Huffington Post article, which includes reference to the 1976 - 83 so-called Dirty War. Here's another look at the Pope's track record over the years:

 

Pope Francis haunted by Argentina’s Dirty War

 

Relatives of those who disappeared during Argentina’s “Dirty War” criticised the new Pope yesterday, saying Francis had failed to confront the military dictatorship in his country.

 

Some 30,000 people were killed during the war and relatives of victims have claimed the new pontiff had a “very cowardly attitude” towards the regime.

 

The allegations came as it was revealed the former Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires lobbied the Vatican to make the Falkland Islands part of an Argentinian diocese and said of the Argentinian invasion that soldiers “went out to demand what is the motherland’s and what was usurped”.

 

The Argentine president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, hinted yesterday that she wants Francis to help secure the islands’ return and used a television address to urge him to “carry the message to the great world powers that they participate in dialogue”.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/pope-francis-haunted-by-argentina-s-dirty-war-1-2835826

[Guest scottishguy]

I suspect the Falklands Islands newly discovered oil reserves (estimated at up to 300,000,000 barrels), was as much a motivating factor in the British organised referendum as much as (if not more so) than any democratic principle.

 

As for this new Pope having a chequered history - hardly a surprise, and nothing new in the least.

 

Nazis/Fascists....Catholic Church.....South America.... join the dots..