NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry, I can never remember the Nigeran cardinal's name.


1 The church in Europe and N. America is shrinking, and will never reverse that trend. In Africa it's growing. Electing an African pope could encourage that growth to speed up.

2 He's just as hard-line as Ratzinger, but liberals might be more likely to praise the church for being inclusive by electing a black pope rather than chastize it for electing a conservative one.

3 John Paul II dealt with communism during his reign as pontiff. Communism is gone. The new threat to western civilization is the appearance of some violent Islamic groups. Just as John Paul II came from a communist country the Nigerian guy comes from a country where in some regions Muslims have imposed sharia law, and violently rioted in the past. He's got experience with ordinary muslims and with the extremists.

Sorry, I can never remember the Nigeran cardinal's name.

1 The church in Europe and N. America is shrinking, and will never reverse that trend. In Africa it's growing. Electing an African pope could encourage that growth to speed up.

...and that would be a good thing how?

2 He's just as hard-line as Ratzinger, but liberals might be more likely to praise the church for being inclusive by electing a black pope rather than chastize it for electing a conservative one.

Again I don't see the point of this, the last thing I want to see is liberals and Africans siding with the Vatican.

3 John Paul II dealt with communism during his reign as pontiff. Communism is gone. The new threat to western civilization is the appearance of some violent Islamic groups. Just as John Paul II came from a communist country the Nigerian guy comes from a country where in some regions Muslims have imposed sharia law, and violently rioted in the past. He's got experience with ordinary muslims and with the extremists.

The Nigerian Catholics are no better than the Islamic fundamentalists to the North of them. Let them both rot in their own religious muck.

Hey, I'm an atheist. I really don't care if the Catholic church disappears. I was just analyzing the issue from the church's point of view. I think they've screwed themselves.

Sorry, I can never remember the Nigeran cardinal's name.

The cardinals' name is Francis Arinz,

[QUOTE=2 He's just as hard-line as Ratzinger, but liberals might be more likely to praise the church for being inclusive by electing a black pope rather than chastize it for electing a conservative one.[/QUOTE]


He's STILL a hardliner. Surely there is SOME semi-moderate non European who would be loverly as pope. Arinz still has a good shot at making it next time around. I am under the impression that Ratzinger at 78, himself, doesn't think that he'll be in there for decades and decades. You never know....

I bet on one of the Italian cardinals...damn I lost that bet.

Here's why I would have been a better Pope:

1] I tend to mind my own business.
2] I sleep in on Sundays.
3] If women's issues come up, I ask women.
4] I've never eaten a monkey.
5] Tattoos are sexy.
6] I'm not Christian.

I think that sums it up.

it rude to call Herr Count Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger von Dracula anything but his full and correct name.

In any case, he was second in command at the vatican for quite some time and inst exactly in vigorous good health.

I dont think the catholics had time in the two weeks after IP II died to really consider a new direction for the church, so they've given us Benedictus XVI to maintain more or less what they were doing and give them time for debate and pondering.

Sorry, I can never remember the Nigeran cardinal's name.


1 The church in Europe and N. America is shrinking, and will never reverse that trend. In Africa it's growing. Electing an African pope could encourage that growth to speed up.

2 He's just as hard-line as Ratzinger, but liberals might be more likely to praise the church for being inclusive by electing a black pope rather than chastize it for electing a conservative one.

3 John Paul II dealt with communism during his reign as pontiff. Communism is gone. The new threat to western civilization is the appearance of some violent Islamic groups. Just as John Paul II came from a communist country the Nigerian guy comes from a country where in some regions Muslims have imposed sharia law, and violently rioted in the past. He's got experience with ordinary muslims and with the extremists.
1. We can't allow the central foundation of Christian civillization to fall into Atheism.
2. Liberals will not praise the church until it elects a gay atheist pope.
3. Islamofascism is largely a political problem, dealt mainly through armies and battles. The decline of religion in Europe and N. America, however, is a spiritual one, and Ratzinger is well suited in this area.

2. Liberals will not praise the church until it elects a gay atheist pope.


Gay atheist liberal multicultural politically correct pope. Who smokes pot.

1. We can't allow the central foundation of Christian civillization to fall into Atheism.
2. Liberals will not praise the church until it elects a gay atheist pope.
3. Islamofascism is largely a political problem, dealt mainly through armies and battles. The decline of religion in Europe and N. America, however, is a spiritual one, and Ratzinger is well suited in this area.

Reponses to your three points respectively

1.) The era of ancient empires and civilizations is long gone.

2.) So what you're saying is you want the Catholic church to have less followers?

3.) I've said this before and I'm saying it again, Christian fundamentalism is every bit as bad as Islamic fundamentalism if applied politically.

1. We can't allow the central foundation of Christian civillization to fall into Atheism.
2. Liberals will not praise the church until it elects a gay atheist pope.
3. Islamofascism is largely a political problem, dealt mainly through armies and battles. The decline of religion in Europe and N. America, however, is a spiritual one, and Ratzinger is well suited in this area.


Christian civilization has already fallen into atheism.
I'd praise the church if it stopped condemning condom use.

Perhaps, but how many Crazed Catholic fundamentalists have crashed aircraft into the Petronas Towers in Muslim-majority Malaysia? Or Cairo? Or anywhere for that matter? How common is it to see Archbishops on EWTN calling for the destruction of all Muslims by fire and sword?

So your third point is meaningless.

3.) I've said this before and I'm saying it again, Christian fundamentalism is every bit as bad as Islamic fundamentalism if applied politically.

Pay attention, I will explain this only once:

Those people are not christians. They are outside of the church.

I am an atheist, but frankly I am getting a little tired of people misrepresenting actual christianity. Another thing, no actual christian would ever try and convert you, and in fact they probably want you to go to hell.

Gay atheist liberal multicultural politically correct pope. Who smokes pot.
He would also have to be a she...and black...and couldnt speak English...and would have to be communist.

4] I've never eaten a monkey.

i really don't see why this is such a glaring negative. although, apperantly Brookfield Zoo does. i can't go there anymore. :(

Perhaps, but how many Crazed Catholic fundamentalists have crashed aircraft into the Petronas Towers in Muslim-majority Malaysia? Or Cairo? Or anywhere for that matter? How common is it to see Archbishops on EWTN calling for the destruction of all Muslims by fire and sword?

damn straight!

1 The church in Europe and N. America is shrinking, and will never reverse that trend. In Africa it's growing. Electing an African pope could encourage that growth to speed up.

theres you optimism, just as JP grew Catholicism in Poland theres no reason why Benidict can't do the same in Germany/Europe

2 He's just as hard-line as Ratzinger, but liberals might be more likely to praise the church for being inclusive by electing a black pope rather than chastize it for electing a conservative one.

if thats their thought process we're not going to win them over anyway

They just had to elect a pope that was in the Hitler Youth. And the German Army. At least we don't have an American Pope. The Vatican would try to invade Italy to liberate it from its oppresive dictatorial regime! Oh noe'd!

They just had to elect a pope that was in the Hitler Youth. And the German Army. At least we don't have an American Pope. The Vatican would try to invade Italy to liberate it from its oppresive dictatorial regime! Oh noe'd!


Thankfully the college of cardinals is not so debased as to even consider an american to be pope.

Perhaps, but how many Crazed Catholic fundamentalists have crashed aircraft into the Petronas Towers in Muslim-majority Malaysia? Or Cairo? Or anywhere for that matter? How common is it to see Archbishops on EWTN calling for the destruction of all Muslims by fire and sword?

So your third point is meaningless.

It's not meaningless at all, he specified that Catholic fundamentals are just as bad when applied to politics, and they haven't applied themselves so much so as as terrorists have done with theirs. If you switched places with the situation, and the Catholics were the majority in the middle east, and had applied their beliefs so strongly in politics, then you would most likely see the same thing happen.

Why do we have to ride Ratzinger on being in the Hitler Youth. This isn't a religious point but come on. I come from a German Family and everyone one in my family thats about Ratzinger age or older was in the German army the Hitler youth or the SS. Just like most of your familys were in the military during WW2 just because you were on the wrong side which most Germans don't believe they might not have believe in the Anti Jews stuff but they sure as hell were ready to fight Russia and france those bastards. I'm just saying that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover not to mention Ratzinger desserted the Hitler youth during the war and only dug ditches.

I agree with HardNippledom on that. The fact that Ratzinger was Hitler Youth proves nothing, because most boys of the Third Reich were Hitler Youth. I bet if you were presented with the same scene you would so much of the same - it's fairly easy to critisize on retrospect, isn't it?

I would have personally loved to see a Spanish cardinal, but that's because I'm Spanish.

Perhaps, but how many Crazed Catholic fundamentalists have crashed aircraft into the Petronas Towers in Muslim-majority Malaysia? Or Cairo? Or anywhere for that matter? How common is it to see Archbishops on EWTN calling for the destruction of all Muslims by fire and sword?

So your third point is meaningless.

How many muslims have invade a Christian country and thrown it into a human rights crisis, using a WMD lie to justify it?

It's not meaningless at all, he specified that Catholic fundamentals are just as bad when applied to politics, and they haven't applied themselves so much so as as terrorists have done with theirs. If you switched places with the situation, and the Catholics were the majority in the middle east, and had applied their beliefs so strongly in politics, then you would most likely see the same thing happen.

My point is, it doesn't happen. He might as well say angry puppies who have been given ICBMs are a terrible menace.

How many muslims have invade a Christian country and thrown it into a human rights crisis, using a WMD lie to justify it?

If they had the culture to develop actual countries with economies that actualy function, rather than thugocracies that exist solely on oil wealth, they might. Luckily, though, non-Turkish muslims haven't been a military threat to the West for 1200 years or so, and the turks seems to be sensible folk who don't blow themselves up in fits of pique.

And I suppose Germany was thrown into a human rights crisis in 1945, when we made the killings stop?

Oh no, Arabs might get to experiance democracy!! We can't have that, can we?

My point is, it doesn't happen. He might as well say angry puppies who have been given ICBMs are a terrible menace.


Thats rediculous, just because it hasn't or isn't happening doesn't change his point. If you look at the history of Catholicism you can see the flaw in its fundamentals mixing with politics, it always creates an incoherent outcome. Look at the crusades! It's basically the same thing that terrorists are doing, "We'll take Jersulam back because its our holy land!", both groups have applied themselves to doing this, and now its just more modern so its more worldwide, America is seen as a threat to their beliefs and America was supporting their enemies, so they saw America as something to attack in order to help further their cause of their religious war. You made an entirely irrational example, I however did not on my previous post.

Thats rediculous, just because it hasn't or isn't happening doesn't change his point. If you look at the history of Catholicism you can see the flaw in its fundamentals mixing with politics, it always creates an incoherent outcome. Look at the crusades! It's basically the same thing that terrorists are doing, "We'll take Jersulam back because its our holy land!", both groups have applied themselves to doing this, and now its just more modern so its more worldwide, America is seen as a threat to their beliefs and America was supporting their enemies, so they saw America as something to attack in order to help further their cause of their religious war. You made an entirely irrational example, I however did not on my previous post.

In an earlier post I pointed out that, while Catholicsm used to behave it that fashion, it has since outgrown it. The crusades were a thousand years ago. Islam, however, has yet to outgrow the "lets kill everyone who doesn't agree with me" phase that mostly went by the board in the West during the 17th & 18th centuries.

In an earlier post I pointed out that, while Catholicsm used to behave it that fashion, it has since outgrown it. The crusades were a thousand years ago. Islam, however, has yet to outgrow the "lets kill everyone who doesn't agree with me" phase that mostly went by the board in the West during the 17th & 18th centuries.


No, the Catholic church didn't behave in that fashion in those times, in fact it was largely against war. It wasn't until Catholic fundamentals were applied to government that killing to retake religious claims became something they did. Then, after many failures in the crusades, the church pulled out, and it wasn't realized until much later that what they were doing was wrong. However, if Catholicism was applied politically today, it would happen in the same way. It had nothing to do with a phase, it was just dealing with how the fundamentals mixed with politics. Ask any theologian about how it would work out if Catholic fundamentals were not only pumped into government works, but applied directly to every situation, the theologian would probably suggest a grim turnout.