Pope Benedict XVI resigns

[Amsterhammer]

What? I said nothing about pedophilia. I am certainly no friend of the Roman Catholic Church or Pope Benedict. I am not sure how what you said here relates to what I said, sorry.

Sorry MEM, that it wasn't clear enough that that paragraph had nothing to do with you. I replied to you first, then posted something different in another paragraph for convenience. My comments about pedophiles were strictly related to the film I referred to, not to you.

 

[Amsterhammer]

What is The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State?

Separate subject, separate post.

I don't think anyone has any idea. Certainly, I've never heard of them, not that that means anything, since I don't really keep up on ecclesiastical matters.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

Sorry MEM, that it wasn't clear enough that that paragraph had nothing to do with you. I replied to you first, then posted something different in another paragraph for convenience. My comments about pedophiles were strictly related to the film I referred to, not to you.

Okay, thank you

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

Separate subject, separate post.

I don't think anyone has any idea. Certainly, I've never heard of them, not that that means anything, since I don't really keep up on ecclesiastical matters.

I am suspecting they are someone who is trying to sound really important when actually they are nothing, but I could be wrong.

 

[rhubroma]

I am suspecting they are someone who is trying to sound really important when actually they are nothing, but I could be wrong.

If it hasn't hit the dailies then they are nothing. Ergo, they are nothing.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

If it hasn't hit the dailies then they are nothing. Ergo, they are nothing.

Exactly rhubroma

 

[phanatic]

Pope Benedict resigned to avoid arrest, seizure of church wealth by Easter
http://itccs.org/2013/02/13/pope-be...id-arrest-seizure-of-church-wealth-by-easter/

Maybe he could go to England.

 

[sublimit]

The Roman Catholic Church's stand that homosexuality is a sin/wrong is about the only thing right about it.

The thing is its OK for leading Catholics to have an opinion, but the dummies that follow the Pope and listen to his usual rambling nonsense take that BS on board. All religious leaders should stop concerning themselves with other people and how they live anyway period.

 

[phanatic]

All religious leaders should stop concerning themselves with other people and how they live anyway period.

You don't need religion to be a blatant hypocrite.

 

[Irenaeus]

As a believer in Catholic teaching, I realize I'm in a minority.

Seems to me he spent most of his time musing over trivial ancillary details that had little or nothing to do with true theology or doctrine, and when he did focus on theology he pulled stuff out of his ****. And yes, his position on homosexuality, birth control and the like is backwards and hurts millions of people.

Hello hrotha,

I couldn't disagree with you much more. I'll leave aside for now any discussions of why I think you first sentence is wrong, and deal only with your second sentence.

It is not the Catholic Church deploying curiosities such as "safe abortion" even though direct abortion (A) is a risk factor for infertility; (B) is a risk factor for ectopic (tubal) pregnancy; (C) is a risk factor for cerebral palsy in babies conceived later; and (D) is deliberately fatal to the fetus targeted by the abortion, for a few examples. Rather, prominent politicians and media including “The New York Times” do that. They would be appropriately tagged with the charge of “subterfuge” for such semantic gerrymandering and disregard for informed consent. It is not the Catholic Church coercively sterilizing women (and sometimes men) and compelling women to submit to abortion. Rather, some governments do that (as Paul VI warned that public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law might). It is not the Catholic Church that has aborted hundreds of millions of innocent human beings – more often girls. Rather those supporting abortion are guilty of that. It is not the Catholic Church committing infanticide – more often of girls - further distorting sex ratios unbalanced by sex-selective abortion so that in parts of China and India many fewer girls than boys are reaching adulthood. Any of those regions is becoming a “men’s club” that will disappoint most men as celibacy in that club, unlike in the Catholic priesthood, will be involuntary for some men.

As a believer in the teachings of the Catholic Church including its prohibition of artificial birth control and its adherence to the quaint notion that sexual intercourse should be reserved for marriage (between one man and one woman, not yet a quaint notion, but trending there), I am now probably in a tiny minority. The Catholic Church does teach the acceptability, when appropriate, of natural family planning methods to avoid or achieve conception. It has encouraged the development of these fertility awareness methods which, unlike artificial methods, do not separate the unitive and procreative functions of sex (think bonding and babies) by tampering with fertility. (The Catholic Church also says that methods that seek to conceive human life without sexual intercourse are immoral because they have the procreative but not the unitive function; they present more health risks than the usual manner of conception, too.) Natural family planning methods have largely replaced the older rhythm method and include the Billings ovulation method, the Creighton model and symptothermal methods. They are cooperative methods the burdens of which are shared by both husband and wife - rarely the case for artificial birth control - and may be used safely with ecologic breastfeeding which naturally suppresses ovulation.

(Are you still reading hrotha and othas?)

The 1960s champions of artificial birth control fobbed off as "health care" drugs designed to induce a diseased state – prolonged infertility – by poisoning women and devices or interventions which monkey-wrench the human reproductive works, usually in women. They declared that these lifestyle drugs, devices and interventions would prevent out-of-wedlock births, abortion, child abuse, divorce, adultery and more. The 1960s were a time of moonshots, psychedelia and great hope in technology and medicine.

The data are in. After decades of widespread use of these artificial methods, the reported rates of out-of-wedlock births, abortion, child abuse, and divorce have not fallen but have moon rocketed (as have the rates of transmission of sexual diseases). Not groovy. While rates of adultery are difficult to obtain, you may suspect as I do that they have increased. In the USA, unmarried women procure more than 80% of abortions; of the remaining less than 20% of abortions (those procured by married women), a significant percentage may be by women impregnated by men to whom they are not married: abortion in the USA is overwhelmingly a consequence of sex between people unmarried to each other. Further, the majority of women having abortions in the USA were using a "contraceptive" drug or device when they conceived the child they aborted (many so called "contraceptives," besides failing to prevent conception, may also cause a very early abortion); a greater majority were experienced "contraceptive" users but some abandoned these drugs or devices, often because of their side effects which frequently include depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive, for just three examples. How ironic. Should we be surprised by such unintended effects when the intended effect is to produce a diseased state? Might these effects – intended (infertility) and unintended (depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive) - have something to do with adultery and divorce?

The sexual revolution has not so much been tried on an enormous scale and found wanting as it has been tried on an enormous scale and found disastrous. While economic and other factors contributed, that revolution has been fueled largely by the use of artificial “contraceptives.” How much worse must things get before those still clinging to great hopes for these lifestyle drugs, devices and interventions rid the moon dust from their eyes and shake the psychedelic dust from their bell bottoms?

I realize the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control is for many difficult to obey. So, too, is its teaching on forgiving and loving others, even others who behave heinously. I believe that a very high percentage of Catholics have failed to forgive and to love sometimes, yet there is little clamor for jettisoning those articles from the Catholic faith. I hope and pray that you and others will reconsider your rejection of Catholic teaching, and I'll pray for my shortcomings as well.

Peace in and out,
Irenaeus

 

[avanti]

.........................

I realize the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control is for many difficult to obey. .................................

Actually the Roman Catholic church does allow birth control; only it has to be natural control, not artificial.
The Roman Catholic church position is that "it is morally permissible to
take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have
coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception
without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier"
(Humanae Vitae, 16)."

 

[rickshaw]

wow

Hello hrotha,

I couldn't disagree with you much more. I'll leave aside for now any discussions of why I think you first sentence is wrong, and deal only with your second sentence.

It is not the Catholic Church deploying curiosities such as "safe abortion" even though direct abortion (A) is a risk factor for infertility; (B) is a risk factor for ectopic (tubal) pregnancy; (C) is a risk factor for cerebral palsy in babies conceived later; and (D) is deliberately fatal to the fetus targeted by the abortion, for a few examples. Rather, prominent politicians and media including “The New York Times” do that. They would be appropriately tagged with the charge of “subterfuge” for such semantic gerrymandering and disregard for informed consent. It is not the Catholic Church coercively sterilizing women (and sometimes men) and compelling women to submit to abortion. Rather, some governments do that (as Paul VI warned that public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law might). It is not the Catholic Church that has aborted hundreds of millions of innocent human beings – more often girls. Rather those supporting abortion are guilty of that. It is not the Catholic Church committing infanticide – more often of girls - further distorting sex ratios unbalanced by sex-selective abortion so that in parts of China and India many fewer girls than boys are reaching adulthood. Any of those regions is becoming a “men’s club” that will disappoint most men as celibacy in that club, unlike in the Catholic priesthood, will be involuntary for some men.

As a believer in the teachings of the Catholic Church including its prohibition of artificial birth control and its adherence to the quaint notion that sexual intercourse should be reserved for marriage (between one man and one woman, not yet a quaint notion, but trending there), I am now probably in a tiny minority. The Catholic Church does teach the acceptability, when appropriate, of natural family planning methods to avoid or achieve conception. It has encouraged the development of these fertility awareness methods which, unlike artificial methods, do not separate the unitive and procreative functions of sex (think bonding and babies) by tampering with fertility. (The Catholic Church also says that methods that seek to conceive human life without sexual intercourse are immoral because they have the procreative but not the unitive function; they present more health risks than the usual manner of conception, too.) Natural family planning methods have largely replaced the older rhythm method and include the Billings ovulation method, the Creighton model and symptothermal methods. They are cooperative methods the burdens of which are shared by both husband and wife - rarely the case for artificial birth control - and may be used safely with ecologic breastfeeding which naturally suppresses ovulation.

(Are you still reading hrotha and othas?)

The 1960s champions of artificial birth control fobbed off as "health care" drugs designed to induce a diseased state – prolonged infertility – by poisoning women and devices or interventions which monkey-wrench the human reproductive works, usually in women. They declared that these lifestyle drugs, devices and interventions would prevent out-of-wedlock births, abortion, child abuse, divorce, adultery and more. The 1960s were a time of moonshots, psychedelia and great hope in technology and medicine.

The data are in. After decades of widespread use of these artificial methods, the reported rates of out-of-wedlock births, abortion, child abuse, and divorce have not fallen but have moon rocketed (as have the rates of transmission of sexual diseases). Not groovy. While rates of adultery are difficult to obtain, you may suspect as I do that they have increased. In the USA, unmarried women procure more than 80% of abortions; of the remaining less than 20% of abortions (those procured by married women), a significant percentage may be by women impregnated by men to whom they are not married: abortion in the USA is overwhelmingly a consequence of sex between people unmarried to each other. Further, the majority of women having abortions in the USA were using a "contraceptive" drug or device when they conceived the child they aborted (many so called "contraceptives," besides failing to prevent conception, may also cause a very early abortion); a greater majority were experienced "contraceptive" users but some abandoned these drugs or devices, often because of their side effects which frequently include depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive, for just three examples. How ironic. Should we be surprised by such unintended effects when the intended effect is to produce a diseased state? Might these effects – intended (infertility) and unintended (depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive) - have something to do with adultery and divorce?

The sexual revolution has not so much been tried on an enormous scale and found wanting as it has been tried on an enormous scale and found disastrous. While economic and other factors contributed, that revolution has been fueled largely by the use of artificial “contraceptives.” How much worse must things get before those still clinging to great hopes for these lifestyle drugs, devices and interventions rid the moon dust from their eyes and shake the psychedelic dust from their bell bottoms?

I realize the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control is for many difficult to obey. So, too, is its teaching on forgiving and loving others, even others who behave heinously. I believe that a very high percentage of Catholics have failed to forgive and to love sometimes, yet there is little clamor for jettisoning those articles from the Catholic faith. I hope and pray that you and others will reconsider your rejection of Catholic teaching, and I'll pray for my shortcomings as well.

Peace in and out,
Irenaeus

I haven't been so bored by a homily since.....? Well, back in the 60s?...'70s ?, last time I voluntarily went to mass

And when you get done praying you might try sacrificing a chicken. Reliable sources tell me both approaches to the Supreme Deity work about the same.

 

[rickshaw]

oops!

Hello hrotha,

I realize the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control is for many difficult to obey.
Peace in and out,
Irenaeus

Read a bumper sticker recently: "You can't be a Catholic and Pro-Choice." Does that sound right? Being "Pro Choice" means you THINK a person should make their own reproductive choices. So, you cannot be a Catholic and think contrary to the Pope.

Anyone know what else Catholics are forbidden to think?

 

[Eshnar]

Rickshaw, if you wanna discuss without trying to ridiculize others I would appreciate it. As I previously said this thread is already in danger.

EDIT: I refer to the post I deleted, just in case someone wonders.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Rickshaw, if you wanna discuss without trying to ridiculize others I would appreciate it. As I previously said this thread is already in danger.

You have to bear in mind that it's very difficult for any non-Catholics, atheists, or humanists to post meaningful comments on this subject without appearing to ridicule, since many of the 'teachings' that the church imposes on its followers are far beyond ridiculous.

In other developments, the organization that no one has heard of has come out with another press release -

International Tribunal calls on Napolitano to "not collude in criminality", and announces global campaign to occupy Vatican property and launch human rights inquiry in Italy

Rome (9 am local time):

Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, has scheduled a meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano for Saturday, February 23 to discuss securing protection and immunity from prosecution from the Italian government, according to Italian media sources.

http://itccs.org/

The Daily Telegraph has picked up on another angle -

Pope accused of crimes against humanity

The Pope and top Vatican cardinals have been accused of possible crimes against humanity for sheltering guilty Catholic priests, in formal complaints to the International Criminal Court.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel.../Pope-accused-of-crimes-against-humanity.html

 

[Eshnar]

You have to bear in mind that it's very difficult for any non-Catholics, atheists, or humanists to post meaningful comments on this subject without appearing to ridicule

If they can't it's their problem. A big one.

 

[Descender]

If they can't it's their problem. A big one.

Why can't it be the problem of the people who feel offended at the very hint of a criticism?

It takes two to tango. Whenever somebody feels offended, why does it always have to be the supposed offender's fault? Could it be that, maybe, the offendee should grow up and stop being so oversensitive?

Moreover, would you not agree that any group that represses any use of irony or sarcasm would be acting in a very despotic, authoritarian and anti-democratic way? Not accusing anyone of anything, just asking.

EDIT

 

[Eshnar]

What worries me the most is that posts like rickshaw's are considered borderline at all. If a conspicuously prosaic criticism of the official Catholic stance on dogma and obedience is worthy of such severe admonition and is exposed as endangering the survival of the discussion, then I honestly don't know how we can have an adult discussion at all.

The post I was referring to is not the one of Rickshaw that is still up. It's the one I deleted. The one that I left was indeed fine.
I edited my post so it is clear.

 

[Descender]

I see. That explains it. My apologies. I'll edit that part of my post.

 

[Eshnar]

I see. That explains it. My apologies. I'll edit that part of my post.

You're not the only one that misundestood it. I should have mention it immediatly.

Anyway, sarcasm is fine, if used with some common sense, better with a few solid arguments. But I hope you guys know the difference between "sarcasm" and "flame". Let's just not end into the latter.

 

[rhubroma]

You're not the only one that misundestood it. I should have mention it immediatly.

Anyway, sarcasm is fine, if used with some common sense, better with a few solid arguments. But I hope you guys know the difference between "sarcasm" and "flame". Let's just not end into the latter.

Oh come now Eshnar, haven’t you heard of Giordano Bruno? I mean if it is “flames” we are talking about.

The problem as I see it, and this isn’t limited to Catholics, is that most people have grave difficulty, if not to say are incapable of, separating their faith from the hard history underlying the religious institutions. That history is rife with contradictions and, in some occasions, deception, suppression of evidence and revisionism to maintain a hierarchical power structure at all costs. The trouble, therefore, is that when confronting such issues with people who frankly live willfully circumscribed lives, it becomes nearly impossible not to ridicule, especially when discussing issues they claim to have been set down by a Higher Authority to which no contestation is permitted. People are of course at liberty to believe and adhere to whatever they want, though one should at least be aware of the historical realities divorced from one’s faith in order not to be subject to derision (which really isn't too bad these days, when one considers the horrific treatment in the past one got form the Church if condemned as a heretic).

Given the Catholic Church's history (millennial) of defamation, blacklisting, forgery, burnings at the stake, crusades, inquisitions, anathemas, ex-communications, corruption, simony and other clerical abuses, and, more recently, cover-ups, obstructionism, unscrupulous profiteering with IOR and the Ambrosiana, there isn't much not to ridicule, or least treat wryly. Yet this is precisely what happens when a very long time ago the Church self-consciously transformed itself into a State. It's the eternal dilemma between two irreconcilable objectives: political power (and the wealth it generates) and spiritual commitment – and it’s still going on.

If the Catholic Church would stop getting involved in issues irrelevant to its spiritual mission, such as how people chose to love each other, procreate (or its prevention - especially in places where lethal sexual disease is rampant), die, etc., in short trying to "correct" modernity's disregard for its doctrine (which in any case is a hopeless battle that was irrevocably lost with the Protestant Reform); and rather get focused on its own grave problems (beginning with pedophilia and its priesthood, a phenomenon by now on a global scale), the abandoning of its seminaries, gross downturn in mass frequenting, or else really worked to alleviate misery, preach acceptance rather than liberally condemn; it might have a better chance at future prosperity if not survival.

In light of these grave problems and issues, I'm reminded of the words of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the Jesuit who was quoted recently in the newspaper and who could have become pope, were it not for the fierce struggle among the candidates at the last conclave (from his Conversazioni notturne a Gerusalemme):

"Once upon a time I had dreams for the Church. A Church that proceeds along its path with humility and poverty, a Church that doesn't depend on the powers of this world...A Church that gives space to free-thinkers. A Church that breeds courage, above all to the weak and in need. I dreamt of a youthful Church. Today I no longer have such dreams. After 75 years, I've decided to pray for the Church."

 

[Irenaeus]

Read a bumper sticker recently: "You can't be a Catholic and Pro-Choice." Does that sound right? Being "Pro Choice" means you THINK a person should make their own reproductive choices. So, you cannot be a Catholic and think contrary to the Pope.

Anyone know what else Catholics are forbidden to think?

Hello rickshaw,

Sure, I'll give just one example in reply to your second question. I cannot think that 2 + 2 = 4 while thinking that 2 + 2 = 5. Similarly, I cannot think that it is a grave sin to procure an abortion while thinking that it is fine to procure an abortion. I think you can supply other examples.

And in reply to your first question, don't you find "Pro Choice" a misnomer? I do, as abortion destroys a lifetime of choices, it is a net destroyer of choices. And although legislation or judicial fiats permitting abortion in my country, the USA, were attained under the banner of privacy, the public - US taxpayers - have been given no choice but to fund organizations such as Planned Parenthood which carries out more abortions than any other body in the USA.

And by the way, isn't abortion post-reproductive?

Still further, as a Catholic, I am not required to conform to any pope's prudential judgment - that is matters of opinion, such as whether Real Madrid will lose to Barcelona - but I am supposed to accept Catholic dogma if I wish to call myself or be considered Catholic. And the pope does not have much wiggle room himself as he must conform to the Deposit of Faith left upon the death of the last of Jesus' apostles. I find that is not true in some other religious communities - I am thinking especially of Protestantism in which we find some communities teaching now exactly opposite of what was taught centuries ago. Specifically, I dare you to find any Christian community that taught that artificial contraception (as distinct from Natural Family Planning methods that do not impair the natural cycles of fertility) or abortion were acceptable before 1930. Now, of course, you can find numerous Protestant communities that express no opposition to artificial contraception and some that express no opposition to abortion, and even advocate for such birth control. It seems to me in those communities, the leader has arrogated more power to himself than any pope does.

Irenaeus

 

[RetroActive]

Oh come now Eshnar, haven’t you heard of Giordano Bruno? I mean if it is “flames” we are talking about.

The problem as I see it, and this isn’t limited to Catholics, is that most people have grave difficulty, if not to say are incapable of, separating their faith from the hard history underlying the religious institutions. That history is rife with contradictions and, in some occasions, deception, suppression of evidence and revisionism to maintain a

hierarchical power

structure at all costs. The trouble, therefore, is that when confronting such issues with people who frankly live willfully circumscribed lives, it becomes nearly impossible not to ridicule, especially when discussing issues they claim to have been set down by a Higher Authority to which no contestation is permitted. People are of course at liberty to believe and adhere to whatever they want, though one should at least be aware of the historical realities divorced from one’s faith in order not to be subject to derision (which really isn't too bad these days, when one considers the horrific treatment in the past one got form the Church if condemned as a heretic).

Given the Catholic Church's history (millennial) of defamation, blacklisting, forgery, burnings at the stake, crusades, inquisitions, anathemas, ex-communications, corruption, simony and other clerical abuses, and, more recently, cover-ups, obstructionism, unscrupulous profiteering with IOR and the Ambrosiana, there isn't much not to ridicule, or least treat wryly. Yet this is precisely what happens when a very long time ago the Church self-consciously transformed itself into a State. It's the eternal dilemma between two irreconcilable objectives: political power (and the wealth it generates) and spiritual commitment – and it’s still going on.

If the Catholic Church would stop getting involved in issues irrelevant to its spiritual mission, such as how people chose to love each other, procreate (or its prevention - especially in places where lethal sexual disease is rampant), die, etc., in short trying to "correct" modernity's disregard for its doctrine (which in any case is a hopeless battle that was irrevocably lost with the Protestant Reform); and rather get focused on its own grave problems (beginning with pedophilia and its priesthood, a phenomenon by now on a global scale), the abandoning of its seminaries, gross downturn in mass frequenting, or else really worked to alleviate misery, preach acceptance rather than liberally condemn; it might have a better chance at future prosperity if not survival.

In light of these grave problems and issues, I'm reminded of the words of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the Jesuit who was quoted recently in the newspaper and who could have become pope, were it not for the fierce struggle among the candidates at the last conclave (from his Conversazioni notturne a Gerusalemme):

"Once upon a time I had dreams for the Church. A Church that proceeds along its path with humility and poverty, a Church that doesn't depend on the powers of this world...A Church that gives space to free-thinkers. A Church that breeds courage, above all to the weak and in need. I dreamt of a youthful Church. Today I no longer have such dreams. After 75 years, I've decided to pray for the Church."

Good post. They could start by letting people in on where this hierarchy originates, but that would be the beginning of the end...

Are you familiar with Schwaller de Lubicz?

 

[rhubroma]

Good post. They could start by letting people in on where this hierarchy originates, but that would be the beginning of the end...

Are you familiar with Schwaller de Lubicz?

No, other than what I just read about him on-line.

 

[RetroActive]

No, other than what I just read about him on-line.

The Temple of Man
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-temple-of-man-r-a-schwaller-de-lubicz/1000404222

A more accessible overview can be found in:

Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt
http://www.amazon.com/Serpent-Sky-Wisdom-Ancient-Egypt/dp/0835606910?tag=yukko-20

Academics generally ignore him, messes with the linear evolution of civilisation among other assumptions their story is predicated upon. What he found in Luxor and his symbolist interpretation is interesting, imo.