[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

"The BBC's William Horsley in Rome says his papacy is sure to continue John Paul II's strongly traditional interpretation of the Catholic faith, including opposition to abortion, homosexuality, priestly marriage and women priests."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4462077.stm

Woman hater, gay hater, AIDS is a blessing, no abortion etc.

Enjoy!

[Randman]

You are too slow.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Randman

You are too slow.

Nope and I know how to post in the correct forum.

[zizban]

Ratzinger is certainly on the right side of the conservative Catholic spectrum but is immensely popular, speaks like dozen lanquages and is charismatic. if the college of cardinals wanted a transitional Pope that will continue to implement John Paul II's agenda rather than starting their own, they have the right man. I think this was the thinking. The next Pope will be younger but Ratzinger is there to keep the ship on the course John Paul II set out for it.

[budster101]

:Thumbsup:

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Woman hater, gay hater, AIDS is a blessing, no abortion etc.

Enjoy!

Well, that is one rather simplistic and ignorant way of looking at it.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

Well, that is one rather simplistic and ignorant way of looking at it.

And yet, not so far from the truth. This guy seems so conservative, I feel the Catholic Church is bound for a crisis.

[zizban]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

And yet, not so far from the truth. This guy seems so conservative, I feel the Catholic Church is bound for a crisis.

Like I said before, they weren't going to elect a Pope who a sweeping agenda, not after John Paul II. The next Pope may be more open but I think Ratzinger will be a fine Pope.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

Well, that is one rather simplistic and ignorant way of looking at it.

Perhaps, but not as simplistic or ignorant as excluding women from the priesthood, condemning homosexuality, covering up sexual abuse (mostly of the homosexual variety, of course), and opposing the use of condoms. What these guys do to deserve all the adulation escapes me, apart from the fact that everyone loves good theater.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Perhaps, but not as simplistic or ignorant as excluding women from the priesthood, condemning homosexuality, covering up sexual abuse (mostly of the homosexual variety, of course), and opposing the use of condoms. What these guys do to deserve all the adulation escapes me, apart from the fact that everyone loves good theater.

Hey, I'm opposed to the use of condoms too. It just feels so much better without them!

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by zizban

Like I said before, they weren't going to elect a Pope who a sweeping agenda, not after John Paul II. The next Pope may be more open but I think Ratzinger will be a fine Pope.

I do not like Popes.

I have respect for people of Faith (any) and not much for religions. I respect the idea of Jesus, but not so much what people have done with it.

I think he will be too conservative, at a time when we need spiritual guidance for everyone, wher everyone needs to find a place of their own, he will close doors, and therefore, turn down the hope of too many to please a few.

[NYCFarmboy]

I think the Benadict VXI will be an excellent pope...and am encouraged by his strong statement against Relativism which is the true remaining evil in the world today.


Read what he has to say about Relativism at:

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...&client=safari

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

I think the Benadict VXI will be an excellent pope...and am encouraged by his strong statement against Relativism which is the true remaining evil in the world today.


Read what he has to say about Relativism at:

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...&client=safari

Sure... Quote the referer to make it stronger... Why not go for external sources instead?

Relativism is conservatism. If you want ot go back to the time of Jesus, you might be in for a surprise. The whole thing is so highly interpretative, the believers may have Faith for a fiction!

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Perhaps, but not as simplistic or ignorant as excluding women from the priesthood, condemning homosexuality, covering up sexual abuse (mostly of the homosexual variety, of course), and opposing the use of condoms. What these guys do to deserve all the adulation escapes me, apart from the fact that everyone loves good theater.

So you really and truly think that Ratzinger (hereto referred to as Bennie, yeah, I'm a really bad catholic) and JP2 before him, hate women, consider aids a blessing, and hate homosexuals?

Personally, I would have liked to see a more moderate pope, like Cardinal Kasper or Cardinal Tettamonzi, but Bennie wasn't wholly unexpected, and I think the bookies were laying odds on him. The surprising thing was the old adage "In a Pope, out a Cardinal" didn't hold true.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I do not like Popes.
at a time when we need spiritual guidance for everyone, wher everyone needs to find a place of their own, he will close doors, and therefore, turn down the hope of too many to please a few.

the doors of eternal life were opened up to everyone who believes by Christ dying on the cross.

all you have to do is believe.

Belonging to a Christian Church doesn't make one Christian any more than being a member of the Lion's Club makes you a lion.

(to quote James Robison)

BXVI has not closed any doors to anyone, read what he has to say.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

So you really and truly think that Ratzinger (hereto referred to as Bennie, yeah, I'm a really bad catholic) and JP2 before him, hate women, consider aids a blessing, and hate homosexuals?

No - I allowed that the original post might be simplistic and ignorant (although I would be more likely to characterize it as inflammatory). I simply said that it wasn't as simplistic or ignorant as the church's actual positions against women in the priesthood, against homosexuality, and against the use of condoms.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

the doors of eternal life were opened up to everyone who believes by Christ dying on the cross.

all you have to do is believe.

Belonging to a Christian Church doesn't make one Christian any more than being a member of the Lion's Club makes you a lion.

(to quote James Robison)

BXVI has not closed any doors to anyone, read what he has to say.

Thank you for the err.. hand offered.. but no thanks.

That Pope is trouble. He closed the door on anything that I hold sacred:

Equality between men and women, especially in regards of Rights among others.

[IceBreaker]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Thank you for the err.. hand offered.. but no thanks.

That Pope is trouble. He closed the door on anything that I hold sacred:

Equality between men and women, especially in regards of Rights among others.

so in other words, until the Catholic Church waters down its religion until it is acceptable to what YOU think, then it is not a valid religion? or just one of many religions that may or may not be valid, but that you choose not to join?

[zizban]

Luckily for you, the Church welcomes anyone through its doors. I think your trying to pass judgement on someone who has been pope for what, nine hours?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

so in other words, until the Catholic Church waters down its religion until it is acceptable to what YOU think, then it is not a valid religion? or just one of many religions that may or may not be valid, but that you choose not to join?

I am passing judgement on dogma and those who carry dogma as the absolute Truth. Idolatry and dogmatism are one and the same absolutism towards the media rather than the original message, which was lost a long time ago.

Of course, you are totally entitled to differ in opinion.

So far, the declarations of this Pope as a Cardinal shows greater conservatism than the previous ones.

You disagree? Fine by me.

But as they say, "L'habit ne fait pas le moine" or, "the coat does not make the person".

You can be part of a dogma preaching universal love, but if you are to keep people from expressing equality for the sake of dogma, I feel entitled to criticize. Jean-Paul II and his position regarding contraception has merits, but the payoff is negative for humanity. Of course, believers either live through virtue, lie, or sacrifice. Yet, more would have lived for the Glory of God had he agreed to support contraception.

Feel free to quote Sacred scriptures as much as you want, if you please; that emphasizes the dogmatism.

In the end, I just disagree and I feel OK sharing my opinion about it, thinking no less of those who disagree with me.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by zizban

Luckily for you, the Church welcomes anyone through its doors. I think your trying to pass judgement on someone who has been pope for what, nine hours?

Anyone?

He has rejected the ordination of women and marriage for priests, and also opposes homosexuality.

And

It was Ratzinger's role to guard against any relaxation of the church's steadfast opposition to birth control. Those hoping for a greater role for women in the church may be disappointed.

Pope Benedict XVI waves to the crowd from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica. (AP Photo/Domenico Stinellis)
That zeal in enforcing orthodoxy attracted quite a few labels over the years. Ratzinger has been called variously "The Hammer," "Cardinal No," even "God's Rottweiler."

Before the conclave, critics said he was too divisive, too polarizing. A recent poll in the German news weekly Der Spiegel even showed more Germans opposed Ratzinger's ordination as pope than supported it.

[olePigeon]

He'll probably move the Vatican to Auschwitz.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

Well, that is one rather simplistic and ignorant way of looking at it.

Not my opinion his.

[undotwa]

Habemus Papam!

Vivat Papa Benedictus Sextus Decimus!

Gaudete et Laudete! Benedictus sit pastor omnium et servus servorum Dei!

Vivat! Vivat! Vivat Papa Benedictus Sextus Decimus!

[typoon]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

He'll probably move the Vatican to Auschwitz.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Christian Hater

Woman hater, gay hater, AIDS is a blessing, no abortion etc.

Enjoy!

Fixed

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by zigzag

condemning homosexuality

OMG NOT THAT!!

That bastard.

[analogika]

Ratzinger is the most vile, reactionary piece of garbage they could possibly have chosen for the job.

And to top it off, he's Bavarian.

Fortunately, he is also 78, so with luck, we'll be rid of him before he incites too much hatred and intolerance worldwide. The worldwide aspect makes the relief that we in Germany are finally rid of him a rather bitter relief.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

the doors of eternal life were opened up to everyone who believes by Christ dying on the cross.

all you have to do is believe.

Indeed, no church approval required.

Belonging to a Christian Church doesn't make one Christian any more than being a member of the Lion's Club makes you a lion.

I like that.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Not my opinion his.

Not his post, yours.

Originally Posted by analogika

And to top it off, he's Bavarian.

Ok, what does that mean? Why is that bad?

[analogika]

The Bavarian thing is a little Northern German dig - an insider for our German forum members.

It merely augments my assessment of Ratzinger.

[zizban]

It could have been worse. One of the leading candidates for Pope was the Vicar General of the Vatican, a cardinal whose views are so conservative as to make Ratzinger look like Michael Moore. If he was elected I suspect chasity belts would have been manditory for all Catholic women.

There is a myth that the Catholic church doesn't allow married priests. This is not the case. There are three exceptions: If you are a converted priest from another christain church that is married already, you can stay married, priests in eastern europe, namely the Ukraine and Russia can be married due to a deal struck long ago between the vatican and the local bishops third and lastly, in central Afirca it is common for priests to be married, though in this case, it's more a the church looking away than permission.

Last year 567 priests were Ordained in the US. With 67 million Catholics, something here will have to give or by simple numbers or there wont be enough priests in a decade or two.

A solution that has been floating around is to allow married priests under certain circumstances: You are retired, and your children are grown up and moved out of the house, or when you are ordained you cannot have children nor remarry if your spouse dies. This is the rule for Permanent Deacons and it seems a fair away to move forward.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by analogika

Ratzinger is the most vile, reactionary piece of garbage they could possibly have chosen for the job.

And to top it off, he's Bavarian.

Fortunately, he is also 78, so with luck, we'll be rid of him before he incites too much hatred and intolerance worldwide. The worldwide aspect makes the relief that we in Germany are finally rid of him a rather bitter relief.

Why is that? He seems like a decent guy.

[Zimphire]

There is a lot of hatred being projected in here.

I don't think certain people in here even knows what the word means. They like to throw it around too much.

I know why they do it. And it's very slanderous, or "libel"

Call it what you want. It's dishonest.

[dreilly1]

I have to admit that I was hoping for a Pope that might be a little more willing to reform some outmoded practices, (and a black or brown one to boot, just to shake things up a bit!) but I'm willing to give this guy a fair chance. After all, his prior job in the Vatican was literally an enforcement job: he had to be the pope's right arm on matters of doctrine. He has a much different job now, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that although his message does not change, his methods will be much less strict than we are expecting. And who knows? If he is serious about attempting to reunify the rifts between the Christian churches, he'll have to bend a little bit on some issues that are rooted in tradition (as opposed to faith, of course) anyway. The key will be to know what can be updated and modernized without comprimizing the fundamental truths that Catholics believe our religion explains for us. One thing that's clear about this man is that his religion contains fundamental truths that he will not compromise.

I've read in a number of places before the election that he didn't seem to want the job: in fact, he asked to retire at least twice in the past and go back to Germany to live out the rest of his life in peace, but John Paul didn't think his work was done yet, and wouldn't let him go. I truly think that he was expecting to see someone else become Pope, and finally get the chance to retire. It's not quite the attitude one would expect from someone who is going to rule with an iron hand as some might believe...

[budster101]

I like him.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by budster101

I like him.

Talk about your kiss of death.

[zizban]

John Paul II brought a lot of changes to the Church and they are still being implemented. There was no way the college of cardinals was going to elect another young, strident Pope, not right after John Paul. They wanted someone older, someone who would keep the ship on course and not bring a vast agenda to the table. The new Pope is to carry on John Paul's work, nothing more, nothing less. I'd be shocked if Benedict did anything that would cause waves. It isn't going to happen. Now, the next Pope will probably be younger and more progressive, but for now Benedict just has the keep the ship on course and I think he'll do a fine job.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Randman

Talk about your kiss of death.

Ha ha

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

I have to admit that I was hoping for a Pope that might be a little more willing to reform some outmoded practices, (and a black or brown one to boot, just to shake things up a bit!) but I'm willing to give this guy a fair chance. After all, his prior job in the Vatican was literally an enforcement job: he had to be the pope's right arm on matters of doctrine. He has a much different job now, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that although his message does not change, his methods will be much less strict than we are expecting. And who knows? If he is serious about attempting to reunify the rifts between the Christian churches, he'll have to bend a little bit on some issues that are rooted in tradition (as opposed to faith, of course) anyway. The key will be to know what can be updated and modernized without comprimizing the fundamental truths that Catholics believe our religion explains for us. One thing that's clear about this man is that his religion contains fundamental truths that he will not compromise.

I've read in a number of places before the election that he didn't seem to want the job: in fact, he asked to retire at least twice in the past and go back to Germany to live out the rest of his life in peace, but John Paul didn't think his work was done yet, and wouldn't let him go. I truly think that he was expecting to see someone else become Pope, and finally get the chance to retire. It's not quite the attitude one would expect from someone who is going to rule with an iron hand as some might believe...

A Catholic would say: The Pope only has power by mandate of God thus the Pope cannot change more than his mandate allows. The Pope can't change the moral truths or distance the Church from the infallible teachings of the Bible. If the Bible speaks against women priests, homosexuality etc. the Pope has no power to change it. That is reality.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by undotwa

A Catholic would say: The Pope only has power by mandate of God thus the Pope cannot change more than his mandate allows. The Pope can't change the moral truths or distance the Church from the infallible teachings of the Bible. If the Bible speaks against women priests, homosexuality etc. the Pope has no power to change it. That is reality.

The Bible also speaks of the Sabbath being on Saturday, didn't seem to have any problem changing that.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by undotwa

A Catholic would say: The Pope only has power by mandate of God thus the Pope cannot change more than his mandate allows. The Pope can't change the moral truths or distance the Church from the infallible teachings of the Bible. If the Bible speaks against women priests, homosexuality etc. the Pope has no power to change it. That is reality.

The Bible also speaks to a lot of other issues in the Old Testament--think of some of the wackiness in Leviticus or Deuteronomy--that the Catholic Church has chosen to ignore. That is simply a change by omission but still a change nonetheless.

Try again with a different logical approach. Arguing that a Pope has no power to shift priorities or stances of the Church is a false argument to make as it has been done so many times before. Just look at the changed implemented by Vatican II to see examples of major shifts in religious practice--and minor shifts in doctrine--within the past 50 years.

[RonnieoftheRose]

They're going to bring back all the laws of Moses - stoning people to death, hanging them from trees, killing gays, throwing ill people out of town instead of practicing medicine, killing heretics, burning women, invading nations, pour scorn on the idea of democracy or that God doesn't choose to speak to select individuals...

[badidea]

Originally Posted by analogika

Ratzinger is the most vile, reactionary piece of garbage they could possibly have chosen for the job.

And to top it off, he's Bavarian.

Fortunately, he is also 78, so with luck, we'll be rid of him before he incites too much hatred and intolerance worldwide. The worldwide aspect makes the relief that we in Germany are finally rid of him a rather bitter relief.

There is one severe error in your post!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by analogika

The Bavarian thing is a little Northern German dig - an insider for our German forum members.

It merely augments my assessment of Ratzinger.

Ahhh, that's it - you...you...you Saupreiss, Breznsalzer, Zipflklatscher, Hosnbiesler, saubleder, depperder Fischkopp du!!!!!

[analogika]

Zugereister.

(I'm surprised they gave you a visa)

[badidea]

Originally Posted by analogika

(I'm surprised they gave you a visa)

That's Joschka's fault!
(btw. check your PMs?)

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by itai195

The Bible also speaks of the Sabbath being on Saturday, didn't seem to have any problem changing that.

Customs and practices the Pope can change, but he can't change 'moral truths'. The sabbath being on a saturday isn't a moral truth - it is only a custom which the Jews of the Old Covenent were bound by.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The Bible also speaks to a lot of other issues in the Old Testament--think of some of the wackiness in Leviticus or Deuteronomy--that the Catholic Church has chosen to ignore. That is simply a change by omission but still a change nonetheless.

Try again with a different logical approach. Arguing that a Pope has no power to shift priorities or stances of the Church is a false argument to make as it has been done so many times before. Just look at the changed implemented by Vatican II to see examples of major shifts in religious practice--and minor shifts in doctrine--within the past 50 years.

What moral truths did Vatican II change? Nada.

There is no 'wackiness' in Leviticus or Deuteronomy. The punishments are not applicable to the Church today, because the Torah is of the old covenant. However the moral truths which are contained within the Torah have not changed i.e. the fact that homosexual and extra-nuptial sex is gravely immoral, the sanctity of human life etc.

[analogika]

...slavery...

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by undotwa

What moral truths did Vatican II change? Nada.

There is no 'wackiness' in Leviticus or Deuteronomy. The punishments are not applicable to the Church today, because the Torah is of the old covenant. However the moral truths which are contained within the Torah have not changed i.e. the fact that homosexual and extra-nuptial sex is gravely immoral, the sanctity of human life etc.

Several posts back you conflated "moral truths" with the infallible teachings of the Bible. You did not say, customs and practices. You did not distinguish between Old Testament and the New. If the Bible is infallible then the "wackiness" of Leviticus and Deuteronomy is still applicable today. And how is an objection to homosexual sex seen as a moral truth whereas the advocacy of slavery is not? Why couldn't the objection to homosexual sex be seen as a "custom and practice" unique to that era?

I am not trying to trick you or be a d*ck. But if you are going to argue logically about this then be logical. Don't claim the Bible as infallible and then say what was said in the Old testament is no longer relevant. Truth and relevancy are not logically related, argue one point or the other. But if the Bible is considered infallible then that statement applies to ALL of it. So, by your argument, there can be no fault found with the Bible. Fair enough.

Please explain to me then exactly how and why you, or the Church, consider some things "moral truth" and other things "custom and practice". Because the objections to homosexual sex in Leviticus don't seem any different to me than the approval of slavery in Leviticus. So why do you, or the Church, consider one a moral truth and the other a custom/practice?

What I am trying to get at is the process that the Church uses to decide what is infallible belief and what is custom/practice. Then I hope to prove that some things that are now custom/practice might have been at one time seen as infallible belief. Maybe nothing has ever made that transition but I still want to undertand the process the Church uses to decide what is "moral truth" and what is custom/practice.