The Pope

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Anyway, the reason I think they'll pick someone more progressive is because they'll basically have to. The rest of the world will catch up with concerns raised by American Catholics. Africa has a lot of Catholics and a lot of AIDS patients, and a conservative Church doesn't have a good stance on stopping the spread of AIDS.

Good points re: the aging of Vatican II. Africa's a troubling case, though. While African bishops have asked the Vatican to make an allowance for condoms for the sake of AIDS prevention, they're among the most conservative Catholics around on just about every other issue. Same with the rising amounts of Asian Catholics. It'll be interesting to see which half of that situation the Cardinals end up valuing more. I'm thinking that, with all but three appointed by John Pizaul, the conservative push will win out.

[tekcop 0]

Ok... they just showed an ad for the next episode of ET. They were talking about the Pope's funeral like it was the Oscar's or something of that sort. "The devout Catholics you didn't see there!" and shit like that. I now hate TV.

[Guest MikeSC]

Anyway, the reason I think they'll pick someone more progressive is because they'll basically have to.  The rest of the world will catch up with concerns raised by American Catholics.  Africa has a lot of Catholics and a lot of AIDS patients, and a conservative Church doesn't have a good stance on stopping the spread of AIDS.

Good points re: the aging of Vatican II. Africa's a troubling case, though. While African bishops have asked the Vatican to make an allowance for condoms for the sake of AIDS prevention, they're among the most conservative Catholics around on just about every other issue. Same with the rising amounts of Asian Catholics. It'll be interesting to see which half of that situation the Cardinals end up valuing more. I'm thinking that, with all but three appointed by John Pizaul, the conservative push will win out.

You might want to ask Uganda how badly promoting abstinence works in preventing AIDS.

-=Mike

...Their infection rate has dropped from 22% in 1992 to 7% in 2002, just to give an update...

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

When you say conservative, are you speaking in what terms? That's such a vague way to describe a person's Faith. What issues are you speaking of?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

When you say conservative, are you speaking in what terms? That's such a vague way to describe a person's Faith. What issues are you speaking of?

Someone more hardline on hot-button church issues that are traditional, but not doctrinal. I.e., considering the ordination of women, considering contraceptive allowance, etc. To put it in brief: the more conservative a clergyman is, the more likely he is to treat traditional aspects of the Church as if they were doctrinal/unchangeable.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Well there are certain things that if the church allowed, droves of people would be leaving thinking it was the end of the world, like pro choice or pro-gay marriage. Those are undoing staples of the Faith, and if you were to discard that TONS of people would lose their Faith, not necessarily because they feel so strongly about the issues, but because the Church did before and now did a complete 180.

 

The reasoning for the contraception is pretty stupid though, and the one about females not being able to be Priests is a little far fetched. That's not really stuff that's too ridiculous. The first two I mentioned you have to be hardline.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Well there are certain things that if the church allowed, droves of people would be leaving thinking it was the end of the world, like pro choice or pro-gay marriage. Those are undoing staples of the Faith, and if you were to discard that TONS of people would lose their Faith, not necessarily because they feel so strongly about the issues, but because the Church did before and now did a complete 180.

No Pope anytime soon, liberal, moderate, or conservative Catholic, will change the Church's position on those issues. Which is why the other ones are the ones worth noting. Gay marriage isn't even an issue with the Church; homosexual sex itself is still the problem.

[Guest MikeSC]

Society may change.

 

Morality does not. Religion does not.

 

The Catholic Church's job is NOT to change with the times. That would, in fact, be absolutely disastrous.

-=Mike

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Morality does not. Religion does not.

Unecessary.

 

You don't need religion to have morals.

 

That was self serving at best.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Society may change.

 

Morality does not. Religion does not.

 

The Catholic Church's job is NOT to change with the times. That would, in fact, be absolutely disastrous.

-=Mike

Unnecessary.

 

You don't need religion to have morals, not that I'm encouraging no religion.

I'm sorry, there was no way you didn't imply they want hand in hand.

 

 

That was self serving at best.

 

While on the topic, it seems counterproductive of the Catholic church to be against gya marriage, and against, as mentioned, homosexual sex. That, for one, seems intolerant, which, I feel, is in direct contrast with 'Love Thy Neighbour'. Furthermore, what's worse? Consenting gay sex, albeit a little gross, between two adults, or priests and altar boys? That alone should prove that the Catholic Church, should indeed change with the times, and allow priests to marry and encourage homosexuality. Quite frankly, 30 years ago before society adapted to being more open towards homosexuals, how many closeted homos were forced into priesthood?

 

Distastrous? Hardly.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I'm not even arguing that the Catholic Church should change significantly. Not sure how that position seems to have been ascribed to me. A drastic change would cause it to collapse in a fashion that almost certainly be worse than it is now.

[Guest MikeSC]

Society may change.

 

Morality does not. Religion does not.

 

The Catholic Church's job is NOT to change with the times. That would, in fact, be absolutely disastrous.

    -=Mike

Unnecessary.

 

You don't need religion to have morals, not that I'm encouraging no religion.

I'm sorry, there was no way you didn't imply they want hand in hand.

 

 

That was self serving at best.

 

Nah. Double posts are self-serving, at best.

 

And, like it or not, religion and morality are DEEPLY intertwined. If there is no Higher Power, there is no REASON for anybody to display even the tiniest semblance of morality. It would be survival of the fittest.

While on the topic, it seems counterproductive of the Catholic church to be against gya marriage, and against, as mentioned, homosexual sex. That, for one, seems intolerant, which, I feel, is in direct contrast with 'Love Thy Neighbour'.

Actually, they're remarkably tolerant. That whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. Read the Bible more.

Furthermore, what's worse? Consenting gay sex, albeit a little gross, between two adults, or priests and altar boys? That alone should prove that the Catholic Church, should indeed change with the times, and allow priests to marry and encourage homosexuality.

Because, God knows, the pedophilia problems in the church weren't ALSO caused by an influx of homosexual priests. Perhaps the Church should have done a better job of weeding out gay priests, since it isn't the heterosexual ones who were fucking little boys.

 

Much as you may wish to pretend otherwise, male priests molesting little boys is homosexual.

 

And considering how much the society pushes sex on younger and younger children, your assumption is, at best, laughable.

Quite frankly, 30 years ago before society adapted to being more open towards homosexuals, how many closeted homos were forced into priesthood?

 

Distastrous? Hardly.

Hmm, a religion has a problem with homosexual pedophiles.

 

So, the solution is to SUPPORT homosexuality more?

 

Yeah, that makes sense.

-=Mike

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

And, like it or not, religion and morality are DEEPLY intertwined. If there is no Higher Power, there is no REASON for anybody to display even the tiniest semblance of morality. It would be survival of the fittest.

 

By no means am I debating the fact they're intertwined. But you can indeed have one without the other. I am not a religious person, generally speaking. But I do feel I have morals. I'm sure I'm not alone there. My parents taught me the difference between right and wrong long before a religious figure did.

 

Actually, they're remarkably tolerant. That whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. Read the Bible more.

 

If the most recent Pope, may he rest in peace, didn't condone hmosexuality, try and tell me otherwise that a religion as a whole is tolerant of it. I went to a Catholic school and remember being told in an assembly in Grade 8 "It's ok to have homosexual feelings, but no one here should act on them"

 

Hmm, a religion has a problem with homosexual pedophiles.

 

So, the solution is to SUPPORT homosexuality more?

 

 

What are you, an idiot? I said very clearly that if priests should marry and have sex, and there would be less pedophilia. While I have no statisical backing, I can safely say that many priests who raped altar boys did not have altar boys as their first choice of sexual prey. Encouraging homosexuality does not encourage pedophilia.

 

 

And yes, my bad on the double post. You're a better man than I, I suppose.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, they're remarkably tolerant. That whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. Read the Bible more.

If the most recent Pope, may he rest in peace, didn't condone hmosexuality, try and tell me otherwise that a religion as a whole is tolerant of it. I went to a Catholic school and remember being told in an assembly in Grade 8 "It's ok to have homosexual feelings, but no one here should act on them"

I don't condone drug usage, but I'm all for legalization. I don't condone prostitution, but I'm all for legalization.

 

You can not hate things you don't condone. People aren't perfect and the Pope, like all HUMANS (believe it or not, Christians aren't ogres), recognized that.

 

And, what you were told is actually correct. It's fine to have all kinds of thoughts. It's NOT OK to act on many of them.

 

I'm sure a lot of married men THINK about cheating. It'd be WRONG for them to act on that.

Hmm, a religion has a problem with homosexual pedophiles.

 

So, the solution is to SUPPORT homosexuality more?

What are you, an idiot? I said very clearly that if priests should marry and have sex, and there would be less pedophilia.

Ah, so to save the Catholic Church, you should violate some very central tenets in the HOPES that maybe, just maybe, the pedophiles will stop fucking little boys?

 

Yup, BRILLIANT idea. No chance of THAT possibly not working out like you planned.

 

God knows sex ed, stopping the societal shunning of unwed motherhood, the downplaying of corporal discipline has worked WONDERS thus far with society.

 

You know, there is an outside shot that things that have been done for LONG stretches of time were done because they WORKED. It takes remarkable arrogance to assume that you have an idea that has never been considered in the last, oh, thousand or so years that will fix all of these problems.

While I have no statisical backing, I can safely say that many priests who raped altar boys did not have altar boys as their first choice of sexual prey. Encouraging homosexuality does not encourage pedophilia.

And when you ALREADY have a problem with homosexual pedophile priests, adding MORE homosexuals, who may or may not be pedophiles, seems intrinsically idiotic.

-=Mike

[Zorin Industries 0]

Maybe I have this wrong, but wasn't the ban on marriage in the priesthood invented sometime in the Middle Ages so as to curtail holymen passing their posistion down to their sons. I could have sworn I read that somewhere

[Vyce 0]

Much as you may wish to pretend otherwise, male priests molesting little boys is homosexual.

 

And considering how much the society pushes sex on younger and younger children, your assumption is, at best, laughable.

Quite frankly, 30 years ago before society adapted to being more open towards homosexuals, how many closeted homos were forced into priesthood?

 

Distastrous? Hardly.

Hmm, a religion has a problem with homosexual pedophiles.

 

So, the solution is to SUPPORT homosexuality more?

 

Yeah, that makes sense.

-=Mike

You're equating homosexuality and pedophilia together far too much. Pedophiles aren't pedophiles because they're homos; the pathology is much, much deeper than that. And I'm sure there are a great many cases of molestation involved priests assaulting female children.

 

As an aside, while I'm certainly not against the Church allowing priests to marry, it's not as if the pedophilia problems would not have happened if they had allowed it years ago. Pedophiles are going to be pedophiles no matter what, it's not as if they woke up one day and said, "Gee, I'm a priest, so I'm forced to live a life of celibacy......guess I'll go stick my hand down the altar boy's pants!" The priests who did that shit could have easily just opted to have sex with an adult woman or man (lord knows, the protestant preachers don't seem to have any problem doing that). They didn't, because that wasn't their sexual preference. So allowing them to marry, really, wouldn't have done shit. It's not as if the celibacy perverted them, they were that way to begin with.

[Guest MikeSC]

Much as you may wish to pretend otherwise, male priests molesting little boys is homosexual.

 

And considering how much the society pushes sex on younger and younger children, your assumption is, at best, laughable.

Quite frankly, 30 years ago before society adapted to being more open towards homosexuals, how many closeted homos were forced into priesthood?

 

Distastrous? Hardly.

Hmm, a religion has a problem with homosexual pedophiles.

 

So, the solution is to SUPPORT homosexuality more?

 

Yeah, that makes sense.

-=Mike

You're equating homosexuality and pedophilia together far too much.

No. I'm simply stating that the pedophilia IS homosexual in nature. A sexual relationship between two males is, you know, homosexual by definition. If it were priests and young GIRLS, it'd be HETEROSEXUAL pedophilia.

Pedophiles aren't pedophiles because they're homos; the pathology is much, much deeper than that.

And I said pedophiles were pedophiles because they're gay --- where?

 

I simply pointed out that the pedophilia is HOMOSEXUAL (between TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX). Which is undoubtedly and unquestionably true.

And I'm sure there are a great many cases of molestation involved priests assaulting female children.

You'd think that one would have been mentioned by now.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Society may change.

 

Morality does not. Religion does not.

 

The Catholic Church's job is NOT to change with the times. That would, in fact, be absolutely disastrous.

-=Mike

Boy, I hope so.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Much as you may wish to pretend otherwise, male priests molesting little boys is homosexual.

 

And considering how much the society pushes sex on younger and younger children, your assumption is, at best, laughable.

Quite frankly, 30 years ago before society adapted to being more open towards homosexuals, how many closeted homos were forced into priesthood?

 

Distastrous? Hardly.

Hmm, a religion has a problem with homosexual pedophiles.

 

So, the solution is to SUPPORT homosexuality more?

 

Yeah, that makes sense.

-=Mike

You're equating homosexuality and pedophilia together far too much.

No. I'm simply stating that the pedophilia IS homosexual in nature. A sexual relationship between two males is, you know, homosexual by definition. If it were priests and young GIRLS, it'd be HETEROSEXUAL pedophilia.

Pedophiles aren't pedophiles because they're homos; the pathology is much, much deeper than that.

And I said pedophiles were pedophiles because they're gay --- where?

 

I simply pointed out that the pedophilia is HOMOSEXUAL (between TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX). Which is undoubtedly and unquestionably true.

And I'm sure there are a great many cases of molestation involved priests assaulting female children.

You'd think that one would have been mentioned by now.

-=Mike

On this issue, I'll leave it to the expert. Thanks for clearing this up Mike.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What are you, an idiot? I said very clearly that if priests should marry and have sex, and there would be less pedophilia. While I have no statisical backing, I can safely say that many priests who raped altar boys did not have altar boys as their first choice of sexual prey.

So by this reasoning if non-priest-pedophilias would just marry they wouldn't bang kids?

 

And I don't buy the they-can't-marry argument because if I wasn't allowed to have sex with women I wouldn't use alter boys as an alternative when I could just as easily bang some lonely, single chick from my congregation...

[Guest MikeSC]

Much as you may wish to pretend otherwise, male priests molesting little boys is homosexual.

 

And considering how much the society pushes sex on younger and younger children, your assumption is, at best, laughable.

Quite frankly, 30 years ago before society adapted to being more open towards homosexuals, how many closeted homos were forced into priesthood?

 

Distastrous? Hardly.

Hmm, a religion has a problem with homosexual pedophiles.

 

So, the solution is to SUPPORT homosexuality more?

 

Yeah, that makes sense.

-=Mike

You're equating homosexuality and pedophilia together far too much.

No. I'm simply stating that the pedophilia IS homosexual in nature. A sexual relationship between two males is, you know, homosexual by definition. If it were priests and young GIRLS, it'd be HETEROSEXUAL pedophilia.

Pedophiles aren't pedophiles because they're homos; the pathology is much, much deeper than that.

And I said pedophiles were pedophiles because they're gay --- where?

 

I simply pointed out that the pedophilia is HOMOSEXUAL (between TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX). Which is undoubtedly and unquestionably true.

And I'm sure there are a great many cases of molestation involved priests assaulting female children.

You'd think that one would have been mentioned by now.

-=Mike

On this issue, I'll leave it to the expert. Thanks for clearing this up Mike.

Wow, a liberal using homosexuality as an insult.

 

Truly, truly shocking.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

the Catholic Church, should indeed change with the times, and allow priests to marry and encourage homosexuality.

What are you saying??

[Guest MikeSC]

the Catholic Church, should indeed change with the times, and allow priests to marry and encourage homosexuality.

What are you saying??

That we must destroy the Catholic Church to save the Catholic Church.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

the Catholic Church, should indeed change with the times, and allow priests to marry and encourage homosexuality.

What are you saying??

That we must destroy the Catholic Church to save the Catholic Church.

-=Mike

If people don't like the Catholic Church's teachings, its not that hard for them to find another church where they'd be more comfortable.

 

That's why there's Protestants, after all.

[Guest MikeSC]

the Catholic Church, should indeed change with the times, and allow priests to marry and encourage homosexuality.

What are you saying??

That we must destroy the Catholic Church to save the Catholic Church.

-=Mike

If people don't like the Catholic Church's teachings, its not that hard for them to find another church where they'd be more comfortable.

 

That's why there's Protestants, after all.

And when the Church violates its own teachings --- they don't really serve a purpose.

-=Mike

[AndrewTS 0]

What are you, an idiot? I said very clearly that if priests should marry and have sex, and there would be less pedophilia. While I have no statisical backing, I can safely say that many priests who raped altar boys did not have altar boys as their first choice of sexual prey.

So by this reasoning if non-priest-pedophilias would just marry they wouldn't bang kids?

 

And I don't buy the they-can't-marry argument because if I wasn't allowed to have sex with women I wouldn't use alter boys as an alternative when I could just as easily bang some lonely, single chick from my congregation...

I personally think priests should be able to marry, but I also agree with this. Seriously, I'd like somebody to find out why it's actually happening.

 

Although they really don't need to change a lot of stuff. I personally don't know a practicing Catholic around my age that believes sex is only for procreation or that it's a sin to use contraceptives. So, I don't think it is deterring many people anyway. Although that may be just Americans.

 

At least the church has come a long way from when my sisters were growing up: they had to hear the masses *in Latin* and naturally had no idea what they were hearing, nor did most of the people going.

[SuperJerk 0]

the Catholic Church, should indeed change with the times, and allow priests to marry and encourage homosexuality.

What are you saying??

That we must destroy the Catholic Church to save the Catholic Church.

-=Mike

If people don't like the Catholic Church's teachings, its not that hard for them to find another church where they'd be more comfortable.

 

That's why there's Protestants, after all.

And when the Church violates its own teachings --- they don't really serve a purpose.

-=Mike

That's not say that the Church can't change some of its teachings to some degree without violating its basic principles. Such was the case in the Counter-Reformation, which was of great benefit to the Catholic Church. Acceptance of homosexuality would violate the Church's principles.

 

Like I said, if people have that much problem with the Catholic Church's principles, maybe its time for them to decide whether they really even want to be Catholic or not.

 

Just because you're born into a system of beleif doesn't mean you have to participate or believe in it. You do have free will, after all.

[Vyce 0]

What are you, an idiot? I said very clearly that if priests should marry and have sex, and there would be less pedophilia. While I have no statisical backing, I can safely say that many priests who raped altar boys did not have altar boys as their first choice of sexual prey.

So by this reasoning if non-priest-pedophilias would just marry they wouldn't bang kids?

 

And I don't buy the they-can't-marry argument because if I wasn't allowed to have sex with women I wouldn't use alter boys as an alternative when I could just as easily bang some lonely, single chick from my congregation...

Yes, this is my point exactly.

 

Go read some books on abnormal psychology. There's a whole pathology to sexual deviants, particularly pedophiles. If you have a priest who's a pedo, giving him the ability to marry an adult female isn't going to stop him from his pedophilic tendencies.

[SuperJerk 0]

Hey, here's a whacky question:

 

Can someone defend the idea that there should even be a Pope?

 

Yeah, I know all about the Jesus giving keys of heaven to Peter...yada, yada, yada, but is there really any need for a Pope in the modern age? Maybe I'm showing my Protestant bias, but I'd be interested in reading some differing views on what necessary function a Pope plays in modern society.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hey, here's a whacky question:

 

Can someone defend the idea that there should even be a Pope?

 

Yeah, I know all about the Jesus giving keys of heaven to Peter...yada, yada, yada, but is there really any need for a Pope in the modern age? Maybe I'm showing my Protestant bias, but I'd be interested in reading some differing views on what necessary function a Pope plays in modern society.

As a fellow Protestant, I don't see a reason.

 

But I don't see why the UK has a monarchy, either.

-=Mike