JCC Pope watch MMXIII (MMXXV Edition)

Of course Pious made decisions he thought were right, but have to judge the outcome. Some serial killers think God talks to them, and they must be judged by the outcome of their decisions too.

I'm not claiming the Rwandan genocide was official Vatican policy, but their pre-trial support (and subsequent post-trial silence) regarding the priests and nuns convicted for their part in it, as well as their refusal to strip those clergy of their titles, certainly speaks volumes. WHY protect these, the very worst kind of people?

 

The catholic church is slow to adapt to the changing times, but I doubt it is trying to spread Aids and poverty.

The Church promotes sexual inequality, because it is slow to adapt to the changing times. The US government embraced sexual inequality, for most of its history and it actually has to govern women.

Suffering is peoples daily lot in life, unless you are very rich, or very lucky. It is trying to take something negative and extract something postive from it.

It is not run by virgins (not that there is anything wrong with being a virgin), Its run by celibate people (I figure you are being dramatic) Its stance on sexual behavior is a hold over of past times. Bastardry use to be a big deal, and infadelity could cause blood fueds that could tear regions apart.

Cant really say much about the rest.

 

V-2 age is like momentum, Object in motion will stay in motion and the older it is the harder it is to get it to change course.

Look at the US constitution, and the Diafication of the fouding fathers by some in the culture. A pre industrial document that had to be repeatedly amended, And it gets depicted as being haded to the Nations founders by a racelifted arabic jew, who probably wasnt aware of the the 2 continets that would eventually be called the americas. And thats after what? 230 years?

The Catholic church is well over 1000 years old, and was made for a medival sociaty, and has more dirty baggage than the 4 United States, while it dosent escuse its reprehensable actions, it does put it in perspective, don't ya think?

 

If you were to set out to deliberately spread disease and poverty, inventing a religious doctrine that states contraception is a sin would be a very efficient way to do it. Can you imagine a more efficient way?

If you were to set out to deliberately combat disease and poverty, then providing free sanitation, female education and contraception would be a very efficient way to do it.

The Catholic church chooses to build hundreds of churches, monasteries, convents and nunneries instead. They teach girls that they're subservient baby factories. The resulting poverty is almost entirely preventable.

If the Catholic church had good morals, they would try to limit human suffering. As it is, they positively promote it.

 

Because the catholic church is a Medival organization, with many still medival outlooks. It is inept not malevolent. And States may choose, and often do choose to disregard it.

 

Yeah. This is the Church's problem, and they don't seem to grasp this fact. The Church is in danger of becoming irrelevant. It would be a shame for an institution that practically saved western civilization following the decline of Rome, to be simply cast aside because it couldn't adapt to changing times.

 

Let's hope "yet" never comes.

If you stop and think about it, leaders put their citizens in danger every freaking day. By declaring war on Japan, the U.S. brought danger on themselves. By declaring war on Germany, Britain brought danger on themselves.

"All the is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

 

Muslim Spain would like to have a word with you on that, but I recognise it's a subject for another thread.
And now back to our scheduled programming...

Cheers,
Lauré

 

Again you keep misstating the doctrine. Again I don't know if it's for ignorance or for mischief. The doctrine does not hold that contraception is a sin, only that natural methods of contraception are acceptable - i.e. abstinence or choosing the right time of the month to have sex. They arise as the consequence of the Church's view that life begins at conception, and that sex is more than just a biological act: as I said, an act of creation and therefore sacred. Therefore the Church takes the view it can't or shouldn't be interfered with.

Ever heard of these groups called CARITAS? St Vincent De Paul? Or to take older versions of the story, the order of St. Francis?

[

When? Now, over the past hundred years, or the past two thousand? You got any statistics on the numbers?

They teach no such thing to girls. You seem to be getting Catholicism mixed up with some of the more fundamentalist extreme Islam views. And poverty is a rather more complex phenomenon than "lol, no condoms = mass poverty"

You seem to have a problem with the definition of crimes of omission. That's a lot different to the hyperbole of "positive promotion". As it is, the Church does try to limit human suffering. Go and look up who built the first hospitals in Jerusalem. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the Muslims.

That's about the poorest two analogies you can cite in World War 2.

First, when it comes to the U.S. - the US declared war on Japan only after it had been surprise attacked at Pearl Harbour. (That's if you leave aside the conspiracy theories that FDR knew Pearl was going to be attacked and let it happen to gee up the US for war. I don't ascribe to that idiocy myself, but since it's cool to revise history...) Either way, the US's response was in direct self-defence and therefore in self-interest. It did not go to war when Manchuria was invaded by the Japanese back in the early thirties, a good five years before Hitler kicked things off in Poland. Sanctions, yes, but put US citizens' lives on the line? No. It also did not go to war when Poland was attacked; that was the "Old World"'s war, something US popular opinion was entirely isolationist about. And the only reason the US even became involved in Europe was because Hitler committed his second biggest mistake and declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour. So much for "good men doing nothing" as far as the US is concerned.

Second, when it comes to Britain - which at least did declare war on Germany following the assault on Poland, after close on a decade of attempting to appease Hitler. Poland was the fourth largest contributor to the Allied armed forces after the US, British Commonwealth, and Russia. It also contributed the largest intelligence service. In the Battle of Britain its two squadrons of fighter pilots -- who'd escaped Poland's destruction -- were responsible for 203 enemy kills of the 1,733 aircraft brought down during that air conflict. In one month of combat they shot down more German fighters than any other British unit in the same period. Rather unfortunate, then, that Britain -- and the US -- essentially sold out the ally they'd gone to war over. At Yalta Churchill and Roosevelt largely agreed not to pursue Polish self-determination against Stalin, which Churchill had previously promised to the Polish Government-in-Exile after the war was over. That decision sealed Poland's fate under Soviet domination for the next fifty years. And Britain had no defence of saying the consequences of that decision were unknowable: given the immense contribution the Poles had already made to the war effort, caused a near-revolt in Churchill's own party, right down to a vote of no confidence (defeated) on the floor of Parliament against him. Now, in the same vein as everyone's been ripping Pius for not doing "enough", I assume people will now start saying "Churchill couldn't start another war just for Poland's sake." Well, you said it yourself -- 'all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing'. In the case of Poland, the Allies did nothing and Poland was (metaphorically) raped at the cultural level over the next half century until the Berlin Wall came down. Oddly enough, a certain fellow named Karol Wojtyla had a lot to do with Poland eventually making its way out of the darkness.

Last point to put here: leaders put their citizens in danger -- but not without their consent. Generally you don't go to war without your people behind you (current US administrations excluded). Those citizens know the risks. Servicemen in particular. I have to wonder whether Pius would have felt he had the right, or indeed the consent, to put his own people at risk in the way you're suggesting. Don't give me the "good men to do nothing" line. The Allies did plenty of that in World War 2, as well.

 

Yep. And in many cases it's found that a criminal in fact is completely mentally unfit, following which they are treated for mental illness - not subject to criminal punishment, or slapped into the gas chamber (and note the Catholic Church is against the death penalty, too.) Secular justice often concludes the outcome of decisions are not the sole criteria on which to judge another human being.

 

Yeah, but the son of Sam killer didn't get diplomatic immunity for thinking he was listening to a demon.

 

*coughMunichbetrayalcough*

 

Pope is simply pulling out early, like all good Catholics should.

 

Not really, he just set a new record for giving things up for Lent.

 

The Pope, the same freaking guy ten's upon ten's of thousands go see, some crying, some screaming, and some fainting at his mere presence is looked upon as the closest there is to God on planet Earth... The man Catholics around the globe revere. Yes, I know it sounds utterly ridiculous, the reason being is because it is utterly ridiculous. So this guy, specifically Pope Benedict, was a main catalyst in this pedophilia scandal. He knew everything.... Than he became Pope.

To me, this is the biggest scandal EVER. Nothing could top this, nothing could come close to its magnitude. The freaking church covers up for pedophiles., going up as high as the past 2 popes. So, basically this information hit the most important desk in the Vatican, and it had a blind eye turned to it.

To me, this calls the entire church and its practices into question. Opens the flood gates to what other lies were perpetuated throughout the years. The actions of the Vatican are the complete opposite of what "JESUS" and "GOD" would ever do.

 

I have to say something...

The Catholic Church does NOT oppress women. There are many saints who are female who are honored as holy women Women can't become priests, so what? That doesn't mean they are oppressed. A priest acts in Persona Christi. If you do not know that term, look it up!

Oh, and There are sex abusers in protestant churches AND in PUBLIC schools


If you are not Catholic, who becomes the next Pope does NOT concern YOU. That is NOT your decision.

I get tired of all the hatred because of the horrible abuse scandal. I get tired of the nazi (did you know that the boys in Germany during that time had NO CHOICE but to join the Hitler Youth? It was REQUIRED!) and emperor palpatine look a like jokes/retirement jokes. I know many of you are not Christians/religious,...but were any of you taught "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all?" That's common courtesy and has nothing to do with religion.

I don't worship the Pope. He is the Vicar (spokesman) of Christ for Catholics. I have a great respect for him. Blessed John Paul the 2nd was elected before I was born, so Pope Benedict was the first Pope elected after I was born. He is retiring due to health problems, nothing more! Oh, and he is human, too! He is a sinner like everyone else!

I should know better than to walk into the viper's den, but I had to say something.


Oh, and I am a Catholic female.

 

I'm not interested in quibbling over the fine points of history. As you say that's a discussion for a different day. My point was just that the Catholic Church as an institution, and Catholics as individuals, have made huge contributions to western culture, ranging from Bible itself, which is one of the cornerstones of western literature, to the Big Bang and the theory of genetics.

 

Maybe she meant "signer" as in, he signs get-well cards to people?

 

Or just 'winner'

 

Yeah that works too.

 

U mad?

On a more serious note, your post is rigged with fallacies.

1) Just because sex abuse happens elsewhere doesn't suddenly make the Catholic church immune from criticism for systematically covering up sex abusers and enabling them to abuse again and again.

2) the new pope not being a non-catholic's decision isn't the same as it not being relevant to non-catholics.2

3) you don't get to stave off criticism/ridicule with platitudes like 'if you don't have anything nice...' This isn't elementary school.

4) women not being allowed priests is merely a symptom of the greater misogyny in the catholic church. The church's continued stances against abortion and birth control are evidence of this as well. The church is literally a boy's club.

5) just because he didn't have a choice in joining the hitler youth doesn't mean that no one can say it affects him.

 

Oh this is just rich. Mendel and Lemaitre may have been Catholics, but the advances in science they made were secular. The religion did not provide some insight, so don't make it look like catholicism discovered these sciences. In addition, Mendel didn't singlehandedly develop the entire field of genetics nor did Lemaitre develop all of modern cosmology. These were done by many people.

So the catholic church did not provide us with genetics or the big bang. But I guess you're not interested in quibling over the finer points of science.

 

He wasnt talking about the catholic church as a religious instatution but as an organization. The Church today is strictly religious maybe semi political, but once it was not just a "church" it was closer to a pan national muti-objective organization.

It retained eastern knowledge, provided education, negotiation between powers, facilitated various medival political actions. It's roll was more than holding sermons, and making people go to church, Religion in europe was more than just a spiritual activity.

I am not discounting Islamic Spain contributions.