Jump to content

Home

The New Pope


ShadowTemplar
 Share

Recommended Posts

One has a right to choose whether or not one wants to be pregnant seperately from whether or not one wants to have sex.
Sounds suspiciously like another old ultra-feminist fallacy that "a woman has the right to walk naked into a biker bar and not be molested".

 

Lol, technically. But realistically if she chooses to walk naked into the biker bar and IS molested, she bears some responsibility.

 

Likewise people who choose to have sex must bear some responsibility, even if they used contraception. No contraception is 100% perfect, and it says as much on the label. Men are in many cases made to support a woman they've gotten pregnant unintentionally, so why should a woman not be made to support a child she's unintentionally produced?

 

Bear in mind while pondering this that I am pro-abortion because it helps our global population problem. That's the main reason for abortion of unwanted children I think, we're filling the world up with unwanted kids. Who needs to produce more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my mind everyone who's seen Ratzinger in action has seen him as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that office (almost for the entire time that John Paul II was Pope) his JOB is to "go after" the theologians who stray too far from the traditional teachings. It's his job to be a hardliner and "defender of the faith" etc.

 

Liberals in the Church hated him because he didn't say anything they liked, but I doubt he'll be more radical than JP2 was (then again, who knows). Remember, that JP2 had a lot of friends as well as enemies. Liberals wanted him to do more, conservatives were horrified everytime he did something new. Of course Fundamentalists who aren't Catholic are going to hate him for disagreeing with their own beliefs, and atheists are going to dislike him for supporting a religion, period.

 

As prefect of CDF Ratzinger's reputation has been one that makes liberals blood boil. While JP2 does the ecumenical thing, Ratzinger says "oh yeah, we're right and you're wrong, just so you know." Then again, most churches says that, he's just being up front about Catholic belief. While there are plenty of teachings that not only Catholics can be saved, the main teaching is that THIS is the Church that Christ founded historically, so we're on the right track. Anyway...

 

The Pope has a much different role. He's more the diplomat and unifying force that leads the church.

 

So in a sense, it's a "good cop/bad cop" kinda thing (or "good bishop, bad bishop" if you want.

 

The Pope calms everybody down and builds the bridges, the prefect of CDF is the watchdog and defender of orthodoxy.

 

As Pope I doubt he'll do much more differently than JP2 has, since he's surrounded himself with pretty much the same administration as before, and he's got this huge legacy to live up to. Yes, he's an old man, but all of this stuff doesn't say how he's going to perform.

 

Remember, that John XXIII was an old guy who nobody thought would do anything, and he called the Second Vatican Council which made HUGE waves in the Catholic world (and the rest of the world with the relation of the RCC to everyone else). It was so radical that some groups even LEFT the Church because of it (see Mel Gibson's church for example). Then we have somebody like John Paul I, who seemed like a young, healthy (it turned out later he wasn't so healthy) guy who was very liberal, and he didn't last much more than a month (33 days in office), felled by a heart attack (some suspect he was assasinated, but that's a conspiracy theory, anyway).

 

He just moved into the Papal apartments yesterday, I say give him a chance.

 

 

If the Malachy prophecy doomsayers are correct, we're at the end, but then anything can happen. He could live to be 100, and the next pope might keel over within seconds of taking office. Personally I think this particular 'prophecy' is probably a forgery, but if it makes you feel better to prepare, good luck to you! We'll find out...

 

As to the Harry Potter thing, I don't know what to make of it. Assuming he's not being misquoted of course, this sounds like another one of those PR moves that is just going to backfire. Look at Jerry Falwell and the Teletubbies or that Focus on the Family guy and Spongebob. There's far more important threats in society than some children's entertainment. JP2's focus on the Culture of Death was spot-on I think, so hopefully Benedict XVI will see the wisdom in not going after the small fry. I mean seriously, how many people has Harry Potter corrupted? As I see it, it's encouraging kids to read, and on the other hand its' part of the fad materialism like any other popular kids thing (pogs, pokemon, whatever). It'll pass...

 

The article itself doesn't provide a lot of info. First off it talks about Harry Potter: Good or Bad by Gabriele Kuby, which I haven't read. Ratzinger read the book and then said (I assume they're quoting the Pope here):

 

It is good that you explain the facts of Harry Potter, because this is a subtle seduction, which has deeply unnoticed and direct effects in undermining the soul of Christianity before it can really grow properly.

 

So kids who read Harry Potter might not grow up to be good Christians? Not that I agree, but it sounds like that's all that's being said, not that they should be banned.

 

Some person named Uta Ranke-Heinemann ("Leading Christian Theologian") then blasts the pope saying:

 

The Vatican feels it has the copyright on what is good and what is evil and it does not want anyone else infringing its right to this monopoly.

 

It will condemn anyone who tries to enter this territory without its permission.

 

Certainly this "theologian" (what denomination does he or she represent?) is pissed!

 

Apparently the previous Pope praised J.K. Rowling (sp?) for being a good Christian (again, no details).

 

I'd be interested to read this book he refers to and see what the author says about Harry Potter books, to better understand what the Pope was saying. Anyway, this isn't an infallible declaration of dogma, so Catholics who don't agree are free to decide for themselves.

 

Edit:

 

According to another (see below) article, the statement above from Ratzinger was made 2 years ago when he was still a Cardinal.

 

http://www.wizardnews.com/story.200504242.html

 

I couldn't find the book listed on Amazon.com, I'm guessing that's the english translation from a (?) German book title.

 

Edit #2:

 

Harry Potter gut oder böse (from Amazon.de) by Gabriele Kuby, published December 2002. Seems to have a lot of negative reviews (not surprising if it attacks a popular book series). My german isn't good enough to read through all of them, and I didn't want to get the poor babelfish translation, but there you go.

 

So this is being brought up now because he's Pope!

 

Edit #3: For some Abortion Statistics see here, here, here, and here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spider AL

Sounds suspiciously like another old ultra-feminist fallacy that "a woman has the right to walk naked into a biker bar and not be molested".

 

Now I'm going to hit you over the head with the UN charter. The UN established that

 

The chapter goes on to state that "reproductive rights" is a concept that embraces certain already recognized human rights. "These rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It also includes the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence as expressed in human rights documents".

(my emphasis)

 

more than ten years ago. Linkage provided.

 

Curiously, this means that the Vatican is in direct violation of several UN resolutions. Add to that the fact that the Vatican is presided over by a non-democratically elected government and you have almost the full range of criteria dubya employed when pulling off his Iraq scam.

 

To my mind everyone who's seen Ratzinger in action has seen him as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that office (almost for the entire time that John Paul II was Pope) his JOB is to "go after" the theologians who stray too far from the traditional teachings. It's his job to be a hardliner and "defender of the faith" etc.

 

You fail to consider that the very fact that he has been head of the Inquisition for so long is incriminating.

 

Of course Fundamentalists who aren't Catholic are going to hate him for disagreeing with their own beliefs, and atheists are going to dislike him for supporting a religion, period.

 

I like the fact that you bother to make the destinction between hate and dislike. Thumbs up to that.

 

But the rest of that paragraph is BS. While it is true that people who hold non-religious world views would probably dislike the Pope on general principle, this does not in any way invalidate the specific critisism leveled against any particular Pope. That one may agree or disagree with the institution of Pope does not detract from the current Pope's guilt or innocence of the crimes that he is accused of.

 

EDIT: Your linkage is screwed. Links 2 and 4 are from untrustworthy organisations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm going to hit you over the head with the UN charter. The UN established that

You didn't catch my drift, Shadow. You said:

 

One has a right to choose whether or not one wants to be pregnant seperately from whether or not one wants to have sex.
And I pointed out that- as in the old feminist fallacy- a woman ALSO has the right... to walk into a biker bar naked, and not to be molested in any way.

 

She has that right, under the law. But as I pointed out, reality isn't paper law, and since we all know that having sex can equal pregnancy no matter what the contraception used was, we must accept our share of responsibility for the outcome, whatever it might be.

 

Whether we have the foetus aborted or brought to term, we must always be aware that that organism is a result of our actions. We are not untouched by the consequences. They are our consequences. They belong equally to both parties in a consentual tryst.

 

WE are responsible for what happens after we have sex. Law or not, it's on our head. Rights? Heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spider AL

Whether we have the foetus aborted or brought to term, we must always be aware that that organism is a result of our actions. We are not untouched by the consequences. They are our consequences. They belong equally to both parties in a consentual tryst.

 

I do agree with that.

 

 

As for the pope. As Kurgan said his previous record is, to an extent, mute.

 

However, one has to assume that the people who elected him did so, to a large extent, BASED on his previous record. So they must be expecting (or at the very least not opposed to) a similar style of "hard line" position.

And knowing that a lot of the world sees him as a hard line pope, you would think he might have been careful with the harry potter comments for a month or two... assuming he wanted to soften his image that is...

 

Kurgan, which pope was it that set up that commission into contraception that came back with the recommendation it should be allowed? You know, the recomendation JP2 totally ignored?

Was it the pope that died off quick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conservative Catholics get their man (and they are really the only ones that practice anyway), and the rest of the world gets to see the RCC for what it is...as they withdraw further from the modern world.

 

Looks like everybody wins.

 

Look, I used to be a church going Catholic, so I didn't exactly grow up with hate for that religion, or ANY religion for that matter. But the way this church deals with so many issues, be it priest scandal, missionaries & AIDs, contraception/abortion, homosexuality, or just general stupidity.... is truly dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...