Betting On The New Pope

I've been more than a little 'surprised' to hear recently that the Catholic Church now accepts that men and women will 'live in sin' and permits this, calling them 'pardoners'? Is this correct? Surely if it is, it's just a ploy to retain as many bums on pews as possible.

I've been following a variety of religious programmes recently, probably as much as anything to see if there is any further advancement in their ability to reason out ways in which to meet the dilemmas presented by societal, medical, and scientific evolution.

I caught the last programme of Shariah TV last night, in which 'ordinary' Muslims can pose questions to one or two guest scholars. A very interesting question was what would be the position taken on cryogenics. Islam, like Christianity, believes in every person having a soul, which departs the body upon death. The questioner wanted to know how the scholars would consider the state of suspended animation that cryogenized customers undergo: what would be the state of their soul? Suspended? It's not dead, it's not 'alive' to senses - it's suspended, like the mortal body. The Islamic scholars felt that cryogenics denied the natural processes of life and dying, and that even if you cryogenized a mortally-ill child, in the hope of it being revived when a cure for its ill was found, this presented the child, as a child, to relatives who by then may be generations ahead of it, the parents possibly dead, or even with no family community to enjoy in the normal manner.

Very interesting stuff - what's the Pope's/RC take on cryogenics?
 
Originally posted by Derek.Burgess@Apr 22 2005, 07:01 AM
Several thousand different wee stains were found,with hundreds of chemical variations.
Click to expand...
Let's be glad they didn't find any big stains <_<
 
Going back to the Spanish decision to allow gay marriages, and this time more seriously. Politicians will often be asked questions about something that is happening in another country. Their standard reply is that it is not for them to interfere in the internal matters of another state. What gives the pope the right to attempt to change policy implemented by a democratically elected government?

The Vatican has asked Spanish local authority employees to lose their jobs rather than to implement the new legislation. Even John Paul II ddn't see fit to get involved when certain American states passed a similar law - this new guy has been around for a few days and is already calling for civil disobedience in a democracy because he disagrees with action that its government has taken quite legally.
 
Brian what you says is not exact.

Pope has asked for some to concience objection, as doctors have in abortions or people has about arms and allow it for them not to go to the army in the obligatory period.


About the gay marriage here

it was not demanded by people but this radical goverment has to pay to the extreme left people that allow them to assualt the power thanks to the biggest terrorist attack in the country ever.


About the Pope
he can ask his people what he wants in any country.
 
From The Times:

Vatican attack on Spain's gay marriage law

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspodent

A senior Vatican cardinal has today condemned as "iniquitous" plans to allow gay marriages and adoptions in Spain, one of Europe's most Catholic countries.

The attack on the Spanish Government's Bill to legalise same-sex marriages is an early indication of how the new papacy can be expected to adhere rigidly to the precedents put in place by Pope John Paul II, and supported by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in his role as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

The new Pope has described homosexuality as objectively disordered and an intrinsic moral evil.

The Bill was adopted on Thursday by deputies in Spain's lower house of parliament, making Spain the third country to recognise gay marriages and the first in Europe to allow gay marriages and adoption of children by gay couples.

The Bill also allows couples of the same sex to inherit from one another as well as receive retirement benefits from their working spouses.

The legislation will take effect a few months after it has undergone the formality of being adopted by the Spanish Senate.

The Vatican denunciation was made by Cardinal Alfonso Lopes Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council on the Family, in an interview with the Corriere della Sera newspaper.

Asked about the Spanish Bill, he said:"We cannot impose the iniquitous on people.

"On the contrary, precisely because they are iniquitous the Church makes an urgent call for freedom of conscience and the duty to oppose.

"A law as profoundly iniquitous as this one is not an obligation, it cannot be an obligation. One cannot say that a law is right simply because it is law."

He called on municipal officials asked to perform gay marriages to object on grounds of conscience and to refuse to go through with the ceremony, even if it meant losing their jobs.

He said: "They should exercise the same conscientious objection asked of doctors and nurses against a crime such as abortion.

"This is not a matter of choice: all Christians... must be prepared to pay the highest price, including the loss of a job."

The Cardinal went on to argue that the Church does not discriminate against gays, but said they needed help.

"The Church does not accept homosexuals being the target of jokes, insults and inhumane expressions. They are people who deserve all our love, our support and our aid."

Spain is, like Italy, a Catholic country but in both countries adherence to some Catholic dictats, such as on the use of contraception, is low.

Traditionalist Catholics are hoping the new Pope will be able to assert his moral authority to bring the faithful back into line on issues such as birth control and the exclusion from communion Catholics who remarry after divorce.

King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia are among those who will be attending Sunday’s inauguration mass for Pope Benedict. Belgium and the Netherlands already allow same-sex marriages, but not adoptions by homosexual couples.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at the blue bits - that looks like a call to civil disobedience to me.

He also talks about "a crime such as abortion". I've got news for him - it isn't a crime and until the fundamantalists in the Vatican, as dogmatic as those in Mecca, find themselves making the law of the land in every country in the world it won't be.

"It was not demanded by the people"
Click to expand...
In a democracy you elect the people that you want to govern. If you disagree with their actions you kick them out via the ballot box.
 
What will be the price paid by an official who DOES perform these marriages, or authorize these adoptions? Have his or her home firebombed? Be shot? Am I being overly cynical in seeing the spectre of intimidation here? "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse..." B)
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Apr 23 2005, 12:47 AM
He also talks about "a crime such as abortion". I've got news for him - it isn't a crime and until the fundamantalists in the Vatican, as dogmatic as those in Mecca, find themselves making the law of the land in every country in the world it won't be.
Click to expand...
It depends on your definition of crime. If a crime is an immoral act then a law won't make it right (e.g. at one time slavery wasn't against the law).
 
As far as I know the pope can denote what is a sin but a sovereign state decides what is a crime. For many years it was a sin to eat meat on a Friday and used to be (I don't know if it still is) a sin not to go to mass on Sunday - but they wern't something that the Sweeney could come round and nick you for!
 
Yes, but the pope saying it's a sin doesn't (to me) neccessarily make the act wrong and the law saying something is a crime doesn't (to me) neccessarily make it a crime. From that point of view I don't see anything wrong with the pope describing abortion (which he clearly sees as immoral) as a crime.
 
OK, fair enough. In return, though I'm not infallible - it might surprise you to hear that - I must be allowed to nominate things that I consider crimes committed by various popes and their acolytes then.

For starters, I'd suggest that if a young gay Catholic boy or girl struggling to cope with their sexuality were to be seriously disturbed by the pontiff's declaration that homosexual orientation is an "intrinsic moral evil" then Benedict XVI is guilty of such a crime as you describe.
 
At fourteen weeks it becomes at least culpable homicide.

At 24 weeks it is a lot worse.

On the whole considering all the pros and cons,12 weeks seems about right as an absolute maximum.

Homosexual weddings (male) not for me.

Lesbian Weddings- please yourself.


I could envisage a severe drop in the worlds population (to nothing) a few hundred years.

I will be long gone thank God.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Apr 23 2005, 09:57 AM
pontiff's declaration that homosexual orientation is an "intrinsic moral evil"
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever said that?

I always understood it was homosexual acts that were condemned.
 
Oh ye of little faith. From The Advocate:

New pope on homosexuality: "Intrinsic moral evil"

In July 1999 the National Catholic Reporter delineated what was already a staunchly antigay stance posited by Cardinal Jospeh Ratzinger of Germany, who was elected Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday. At the time, Ratzinger had imposed a lifetime ban on pastoral work by pro-gay Salvatorian Fr. Robert Nugent and School Sister of Notre Dame Jeannine Gramick. The move was just the latest step in an effort by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to prevent evolution in church teaching toward acceptance of openly gay and lesbian people, the paper reported. Here is the Reporter's review of key moments:

May 1984: Ratzinger orders the imprimatur lifted from Sexual Morality by Fr. Philip S. Keane, published in 1977 by Paulist Press. Keane argues that homosexual conduct cannot be understood as "absolutely immoral."

September 1986: Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen in Seattle announces that he has transferred final authority in five areas, including the pastoral care of gays, to Auxiliary Bishop Donald Wuerl in accord with Vatican instructions. The action follows a written critique by Ratzinger, citing, among other flaws, Hunthausen's decision in 1983 to permit a Mass for Dignity, a Catholic gay group, in his cathedral.

October 1986: Ratzinger publishes a document titled "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons." The letter warns of "deceitful propaganda" from pro-homosexual groups. It instructs bishops not to accept groups that "seek to undermine the teaching of the church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely." The letter refers to homosexual orientation as an "intrinsic moral evil." In the wake of the letter, many Catholic bishops bar Dignity from using church facilities.

October 1986: Acting on instructions from Ratzinger, the head of the Jesuit order informs Jesuit Fr. John McNeill that he must either abandon pastoral ministry with gays or be expelled from the order. McNeill chooses not to give up his work. McNeill had been silenced by the Vatican in 1977 for his book The Church and the Homosexual, which argued that stable homosexual relationships should be judged by the same moral criteria as heterosexual relationships. The book was originally published with the permission of McNeill's Jesuit superiors.

November 1986: Ratzinger directs Bishop Matthew Clark of the Rochester, N.Y., diocese to remove the imprimatur from Parents Talk Love: The Catholic Family Handbook About Sexuality, written by a priest and a high school teacher. According to the priest, Ratzinger objects to the lack of a clear condemnation of homosexual conduct.

January 1987: After prolonged debate, the Catholic University of America fires Fr. Charles Curran, a moral theologian known for his dissent from official church teaching on sexual ethics. On homosexuality, Curran has written: "Homosexual acts in the context of a loving relationship that strives for permanency can in a certain sense be objectively morally acceptable."

December 1988: Dominican Fr. Matthew Fox is silenced by Ratzinger, citing his failure to condemn homosexuality, among a host of other issues. Fox is expelled from the Dominican order in 1992.

February 1992: Canadian theologian Fr. Andrew Guindon is notified that he is under investigation by the doctrinal congregation for his book The Sexual Creators. Ratzinger demands that he clarify his views on homosexuality, birth control, and premarital sex. Ratzinger's 13-page critique is published in L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper.

July 1992: Ratzinger sends a letter to the U.S. bishops supporting legal discrimination against gays in certain areas: adoption rights, the hiring of gays as teachers or coaches, and the prohibition of gays in the military. In such situations, Ratzinger writes, "It is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account."

November 1992: The new Catechism of the Catholic Church is published. Though the text acknowledges that homosexual persons "do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial" and forbids any disrespect or failure of compassion for gays, the Catechism repeats the position that the homosexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered."

December 1996: Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of the doctrinal congregation, publishes an article in L'Osservatore Romano asserting that certain church teachings must be considered infallible even in the absence of a formal declaration to that effect. The bans on homosexuality and contraception are among the teachings mentioned by Bertone.

February 1997: Following a warning to the Society of St. Paul from Ratzinger, the Vatican imposes a new leader on the order. The Paulines' flagship publication, Famiglia Cristiana, published an article in 1996 suggesting that parents should not force their moral views on a gay child. Bishop Antonio Buoncristiani is appointed the society's temporary leader and charged with ensuring that Pauline publications better reflect church teaching.

July 1998: The Committee on Marriage and Family of the U.S. bishops' conference reissues its letter to parents of homosexuals, "Always Our Children," after making several changes demanded by Ratzinger. They include referring to homosexuality as a "deep-seated" rather than "fundamental" dimension of personality; suggesting that homosexual acts by adolescents may not indicate a homosexual orientation; adding a footnote describing homosexuality as "objectively disordered"; and deleting a passage that encourages use of terms such as "homosexual, gay, and lesbian" from the pulpit in order to "give people permission" to discuss homosexuality.

September 1998: Clark removes Fr. James Callan from his position as pastor of Rochester's Corpus Christi Parish. Callan asserts that Clark is acting under pressure from Ratzinger. Among other things, Callan is criticized for blessing same-sex unions.

December 1998: Ratzinger, other curial officials, and a group of Australian bishops put out a document citing problems in the Australian church resulting from a "worldwide crisis of faith." Among other deviations, the document cites a moral view in which "heterosexuality and homosexuality come to be seen as simply two morally equivalent variations."
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Apr 23 2005, 10:57 AM
For starters, I'd suggest that if a young gay Catholic boy or girl struggling to cope with their sexuality were to be seriously disturbed by the pontiff's declaration that homosexual orientation is an "intrinsic moral evil" then Benedict XVI is guilty of such a crime as you describe.
Click to expand...
I would'nt disagree with that Brian although I wouldn't say that the pope's intent was in any way evil. Although some would dispute it, the pope's human, he's an old man and his views are probably shared by the majority of old men, inside and outside the church. We had all this up here a few years back with that section 28 business when billionairre Tom Farmer funded a Catholic church led homophoebic campaign against Labour's proposal. It's certainly hard to imagine Jesus telling some young school boy wrestling with his sexuality that he's an abomination before God.

Most religious outfits make themselves a bit of a joke with their sex neurosis to the extant that important issues such as abortion end up being tarred with the same brush. I find it hilarious that what could only be described as a tickle, and where your actual tickly bit is situated, could be the cause of so much turmoil. I reckon that few homosexuals would truly admit that they'd have chosen to be that way, given the choice. Since it's not a choice, describing being in that state as evil is way off the mark.

As I've said before, the Catholic church are going to end up in a bit of a pickle once the inevitable orgasm drug hits the market. Will it be a case of heroin's a venial sin but the orgasm pill's a mortal one :lol:.
 
Brian, that looks like The Advocate's (for whatever authority it holds) version of events.

I never heard JPII condemn a person for being homosexual, and I don't expect to hear Benedict XVI do it either.

Of course, perhaps it's a question of interpretation of 'orientation'.
 
"Brian, that looks like The Advocate's (for whatever authority it holds) version of events.

I never heard JPII condemn a person for being homosexual, and I don't expect to hear Benedict XVI do it either."
Click to expand...

In their own words:

"Homosexual marriages are part of a new ideology of evil that is insidiously threatening society"
Pope John Paul in his book "Memory and Identity".

And:
In 1986, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the infamous Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.

Ratzinger wrote that a homosexual orientation, even if the person is totally celibate, is a "tendency" toward an "intrinsic moral evil". Moreover, a homosexual inclination is both an "objective disorder" and a "moral disorder", which is "contrary to the creative wisdom of God". "Special concern and pastoral attention should be directed towards those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

Ratzinger's 1986 Letter concludes that pastoral care for homosexual persons should include "the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences", and that "all support should be withdrawn from any organisations which seek to undermine the teachings of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which ignore it entirely".

In July 1992, the Vatican issued a further proclamation authorised by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and by Pope John Paul II, entitled "Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons".

This document was designed to mobilise Catholic opinion against equal rights legislation for lesbians and gay men. It describes homosexuality as an "objective disorder" and a "tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil". Rejecting the concept of homosexual "human rights", it asserts there is "no right" to homosexuality; adding that the civil liberties of lesbians and gay men can be "legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct".

While condemning "unjust" discrimination, the Vatican document says that some forms of antigay discrimination are "not unjust" and may even be "obligatory": especially with regard to "the consignment of children to adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or coaches, and in military recruitment".

Most shocking of all, the 1992 document suggests that when lesbians and gay men demand civil rights, "neither the Church nor society should be surprised when ... irrational and violent reactions increase".

This implies that by asking for human rights, lesbians and gay men encourage homophobic prejudice and violence: they bring hatred upon ourselves, and are responsible for their own suffering. The Catholic Church, it seems, blames the victims of homophobia, not the perpetrators.

And I haven't even started on contraception, abortion and single cell research!
 
In that case, it sounds like it is a question of interpretation of orientation.

A homosexual interested in a same-sex relationship (regardless of whether they act upon it or not) is therefore seen as being as wrong as a hetero interested in pre- or extra-marital sex.

There's a consistency there.
 
That's slightly disingenuous, dear Maurice. Since same-sexers are denied Church marriage, they can hardly have 'pre' or 'extra' marital affairs. They can only have sexual relations, and it is those that the Church finds to be evil, while their 'state' demands compassion, but NOT acceptance. Obviously, the Church must continue to uphold the view that pre and extra marital sexual relations for heteros are a sin, but they're not, it seems, viewed as 'inherently evil'.

It seems to me, and you must correct me if I'm wrong, that a married man could confess to an extramarital heterosexual affair and probably be forgiven for 'sinning', with suitable penances, but if he were to say he'd had an extramarital homosexual affair (as I think we're all grown-up enough to know happens), he'd be told he was 'evil'. Would he be forgiven? Excommunicated?

And is anyone going to give me an answer about 'pardoners'? Since when did 'living in sin' become not a sin, and why? If the Church's teachings are immutable, how come this has - I understand - mutated?
 
Colin: sorry about that, though I fear you're a little overly nitpicking about Jason's overly enthusiastic delivery. I'll try not to be too overly in future.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Apr 24 2005, 12:40 AM
It seems to me, and you must correct me if I'm wrong, that a married man could confess to an extramarital heterosexual affair and probably be forgiven for 'sinning', with suitable penances, but if he were to say he'd had an extramarital homosexual affair (as I think we're all grown-up enough to know happens), he'd be told he was 'evil'. Would he be forgiven? Excommunicated?
Click to expand...
The Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) absolves the sinner of all sins (for which he/she is truly sorry).
 
Back
Top