Pope Ratzinger.

[Melchior]

Originally posted by johnny: That's not what the bible says. Gods words are for everyone, even for those who don't believe. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

A Priest is not the Bible. A Priest is there to help you in your relationship with God. If you're not married why would you see a marriage counsellor? If you don't know God, why would you go to confession or seek absolution? Why would you go to mass or listen to a sermon for any other reason than to get closer in your relationship with God?

[johnny]

Dude, you are way too deep for me, i need more dope in order to continue this discussion, otherwise i'll be drifting away from this topic more and more without even knowing where i'm going, and then you'll have to go out there and be a good shepard and bring me back into the hurd and all that, and we don't wanna do that.

[Melchior]

ok

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Melchior: Thanks for the heads up. Why is this post here if that's the case? Discussing a Pope is kinda religious.

We're always trying to find the thin line between what's allowed and what's not - and the moratorium isn't focused on discussions of any religious nature, but only those that pits people against one another in an endless loop (like abortion). Just as long as we're talking facts (or interpretations thereof) and not go into any higher levels of BS with Jesus being dragged into it, we're fine.

Originally posted by Melchior: As for anti-Catholic, anti-religious/anti-catholic is the same thing right? Just like anti-Buddhist is anti-religious. One is generalised, the other specific.

No, there's a logical flaw in your thinking there. While anti-Catholic can be seen as a subcategory of anti-religious, you can't turn it around and say that any anti-religious elements are automatically part of anti-catholic sentiments. If my religion preaches hedonism or finds spirituality by using a certain kind of drugs, than your earlier statement is already incorrect, as those elements can't be anti-religion then.

Originally posted by Melchior: As to the hypocrisy thing, I'm not really sure what you mean. Individuals deviating from a political parties stated ethos doesn't make the political party contradictory. It just shows the political party has humans who think independently in it. Same with the Roman Catholic Church. That's how I see it. A Pope that goes against the what say the Bible says or the Vatican council decide, doesn't prove the church is hypocrictical, just full of humans who can be rotten sometimes.

Catholicism is known for its ostentatious nature, as anyone can say who has ever been in a Catholic Church - there's already a certain level of materialism to be discerned right there. I won't delve into the matter of how much of the ridiculously rich Catholic Church's money originates from genuine donations over the centuries and how much of it by theft, ridiculous taxes (they used to levy those), repression and pillaging (Crusades, WWII (!)), but you get the picture. For a Church that reviles materialism (as you seems to indicate), the Catholic Church has always had some trouble living up to it itself - and there's more than just one reason why the Iconoclastic Outbreak happened, or why there was an apparent need for a counter-movement like the one Martin Luther instigated, or those of the Dominicans, or the Franciscans. So yes, I actually do think "hypocrisy" is justified.
As for women being repressed into submissive roles in marriage as an example of hypocrisy (in the light of fighting female-unfriendliness in rock music) - well, that one should be a no-brainer, really.

[ 04-25-2005, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[quietman1920]

The Catholic church for a while had a program in Africa disseminating information that condoms didn't work and didn't prevent AIDS. Sadly, it was very effective. One could argue that the Church is responsible for more deaths in the last 10 years than all the Crusades and all the Inquisitions combined.

[Melchior]

Originally posted by Grojlach: [QB] No, there's a logical flaw in your thinking there. While anti-Catholic can be seen as a subcategory of anti-religious, you can't turn it around and say that any anti-religious elements are automatically part of anti-catholic sentiments. If my religion preaches hedonism or finds spirituality by using a certain kind of drugs, than your earlier statement is already incorrect, as those elements can't be anti-religion then.

If a Roman Catholic Cardinal says something is antireligious, it can safely be assumed that he's talking from his own perspective and own religion. Catholicism is a religion, so he's not speaking falsely. I think the criticism is unwarranted. Calling an 81 year old man with a keen intellect, charisma and a caring, devoted heart a "moldy old fossil" is pretty harsh and mean.

If something is a catholic relic, it's a religious relic and If something is an islamic holy book, it's a religious holy book. Therefore if something is anti-islamic or anti-catholic it's anti religious, as it's against a religion. Some religions could be anti-religious. Nowhere does anti-religious have to mean against all religions.

Catholicism is known for its ostentatious nature, as anyone can say who has ever been in a Catholic Church - there's already a certain level of materialism to be discerned right there. I won't delve into the matter of how much of the ridiculously rich Catholic Church's money originates from genuine donations over the centuries and how much of it by theft, ridiculous taxes (they used to levy those), repression and pillaging (Crusades, WWII (!)), but you get the picture. For a Church that reviles materialism (as you seems to indicate), the Catholic Church has always had some trouble living up to it itself - and there's more than just one reason why the Iconoclastic Outbreak happened, or why there was an apparent need for a counter-movement like the one Martin Luther instigated, or those of the Dominicans, or the Franciscans. So yes, I actually do think "hypocrisy" is justified.

Individual materialism is not the same as collective ownership. If you're a member of a church, you partake in the ownership and benefits of whatever materials the church owns. The early church in acts could be seen as a prototype of communal socialism. THe church can safely preach against individual materialism and an obsession with aquisition, because it's leaders don't own much, and the church doesn't exist for profit. All it is is members giving to something they are part of. It's not like the church fleeces customers like a company would.

Martin Luther is a good example. He was the product of the Roman Catholic Church. That he developed the education, faith and connections with people to make a sucessful counter movement highlights how a church can still suceed in empowering and growing people in the midst of heinous faults. Others may have used their knowledge to reform the church, but he broke away. Doesn't change the fact that he was a Roman Catholic scholar-monk.

As for women being repressed into submissive roles in marriage as an example of hypocrisy (in the light of fighting female-unfriendliness in rock music) - well, that one should be a no-brainer, really.

Males and females both have biblical roles in marriage. One is a servant, the other is submissive. Two sides of the same coin. Treating a woman as a mindless piece of property, as per rock/rap music is not good. Giving a person skills to love properly, as per the bible or church is good.

Not all rock music is evil and not every Priest gives good advice. It doesn't change what's been said.

[Melchior]

Originally posted by quietman1920: The Catholic church for a while had a program in Africa disseminating information that condoms didn't work and didn't prevent AIDS. Sadly, it was very effective. One could argue that the Church is responsible for more deaths in the last 10 years than all the Crusades and all the Inquisitions combined.

The church has a right to preach it's solution to aids - which is monogamy. What good catholic would make sure they obeyed the no contraception edict, and yet break the bigger edict - no sex outside marriage? The only people hurt by the contraception edict are married catholics who are in poverty with too many children. The spread of aids would actually be stopped if people followed the churches teaching and had one partner all their life.

To blame the Catholic church for illnesses it's seeking to prevent and treat is sick.

[Stratos]

You use the term "anti-religious" pretty broadly, Melchior. Eating pork is forbidden in Islam, so it must be anti-religious. By stating it like this, you'll find that there's alot in life that is anti-religious and the term becomes watered down.

Instead I prefer to use the term "anti-religious" for something or someone that actually opposes religion.

[ 04-25-2005, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Melchior: The church has a right to preach it's solution to aids - which is monogamy. What good catholic would make sure they obeyed the no contraception edict, and yet break the bigger edict - no sex outside marriage? The only people hurt by the contraception edict are married catholics who are in poverty with too many children. The spread of aids would actually be stopped if people followed the churches teaching and had one partner all their life. To blame the Catholic church for illnesses it's seeking to prevent and treat is sick.

Well I don't know whether what he said was true or not. But if it was then it was wrong. It's one thing saying that monogamy is a solution to aids, and another to lie and say that condoms don't help. They could've just not mentioned condoms... That way they could still preach monogamy, right?

[ 04-25-2005, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Melchior]

Originally posted by Stratos: You use the term "anti-religious" pretty broadly, Melchior. Eating pork is forbidden in Islam, so it must be anti-religious. By stating it like this, you'll find that there's alot in life that is anti-religious and the term becomes watered down. Instead I prefer to use the term "anti-religious" for something or someone that actually opposes religion.

I would think it's perfectly normal for an Imam to condemn a song urging people to eat pork or forsake other muslim ideas as being anti-religious. We know he's muslim so we have a point of reference. I think people are being a bit harsh on Benedict, considering the quote is hearsay, and he's a German who presents edicts in accented Italian. Aside from the lost in translation aspect, it's a bit rough having condemning a man for voicing concerns about things that may undermine his church.