NationStates Jolt Archive

http://bobfromaccounting.com

Edit: Sorry, I guess I can't link directly to the article. Use the new link to access the site, then click on the appropriate article on the right side of the screen.

Lol the link itself is funny enough to read.

And yes, we're well aware the pope is a homophobe. They all are. It's what being a catholic is all about. Opress the people.

Website not ready to display page

Your link was messed up... For the benefit of future viewers bowel movments:

New Pope Not Ready To Tackle Buttsex Issue! (http://bobfromaccounting.com/4_2705/buttsex.html)

I think you meant to link to: http://bobfromaccounting.com/4_2705/buttsex.html

I wholeheartedly endorse bad, groan-worthy innuendos on buttsex.

Lol the link itself is funny enough to read.

And yes, we're well aware the pope is a homophobe. They all are. It's what being a catholic is all about. Opress the people.

Not really. The RCC stays true to ideals that do not appeal to most modern people and thats it. You either are a practising catholic or a practising homosexual. What is wrong with that?

Not really. The RCC stays true to ideals that do not appeal to most modern people and thats it. You either are a practising catholic or a practising homosexual. What is wrong with that?

The fact that apparently being gay is a sin... if so, why did he give us the ability to do it? :confused:

The fact that apparently being gay is a sin... if so, why did he give us the ability to do it? :confused:Ever heard of free will?

Besides, by your argument that if we can do something it's okey, then rape is okay I guess. I mean, if we have the ability to do it, why shouldn't we? Oh, and murder and theft too, while we're at it.

The fact that apparently being gay is a sin... if so, why did he give us the ability to do it? :confused:
According to catholic doctrine its a sin to have sex out of wedlock, gay or otherwise. But they also say they are against gay marriage. Its not nearly as hardline a stance as some christian denominations, but still pretty stupid IMO.

I read this article about Ratzinger before he became Pope (back in 2000 actually):

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
He is Pope John Paul II’s sidekick, his confidante and his enforcer. But when the fading Polish prelate meets his maker in the not-too-distant future, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger may also be next in line to become the world’s top Roman Catholic, the corporal representative of God’s word on Earth. And that should give us all pause, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Currently the suave, white-haired German Cardinal runs the Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This august organization is occasionally referred to as the Holy Office but it is perhaps best known by an older name – the Inquisition. You history buffs will remember the Inquisition: those Catholic zealots who in the Middle Ages couldn’t abide apostates and doubters of the One True Faith. They perfected the use of thumbscrews and the rack to force Jews, Muslims and other dissenters to adopt the Vatican’s more ‘accurate’ understanding of Christianity.

Though he may be next in line for St Peter’s throne, Joe Ratzinger is no spring chicken. He was born in Bavaria in 1927 so is only six years younger than John Paul II. However, he shows few signs of slowing down. He has been the Vatican’s top doctrinal officer since 1981 and is a recondite intellectual, fluent in four languages. His intellectual searching began as a seminarian in Nazi Germany where he rounded out the experience with a brief fling in the Hitler Youth, though he was never a member of the Nazi Party. He was later conscripted into the German Army from which he eventually deserted before ending the war as an American POW.

After completing his doctorate on St Augustine in 1953 he made the rounds as a professor of ‘systematic theology’ before ascending to the position of Archbishop of Munich in 1977. From there John Paul II invited him to Rome, where he took up residence in 1981.

Once settled he was quick to make a mark with his old-fashioned dogmatism and conservative values. He was particularly upset by what he saw as destructive, liberalizing influences unleashed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). These ‘wild excesses’ extended to the introduction of a non-Latin Mass after Vatican II which Ratzinger characterized as a ‘tragic breach’ in tradition. But the Cardinal’s discomfort with modern life and yearning for the good old days also extended to the social realm, especially into the areas of gay rights and women.

In 1986 Ratzinger issued a letter to the Catholic Bishops in which he wrote that homosexuality was a ‘tendency’ towards an ‘intrinsic moral evil’. A few years later, in 1992, he rejected the notion of human rights for gays, stressing that their civil liberties could be ‘legitimately limited’. He followed up by remarking that ‘neither the church nor society should be surprised’ if ‘irrational and violent reactions increase’ when gays demand civil rights. Not a man to mince his words, Ratzinger urgently set to work to ferret out gay-sensitive clergy.

The good Cardinal also extended the Papal principle of ‘infallibility’ by declaring that the ordination of women was impossible because John Paul II said it was so. Ditto for the use of the word ‘priest’ by the Anglican Church: not on, said Joe, because Leo XIII in 1896 said it wasn’t allowed.

The Cardinal is also not happy mixing religion and politics – at least not the kind of politics which suggests the Church has an obligation to assist the poor in their fight for justice. So he set out to muzzle outspoken ‘liberation’ theologians including Brazil’s charismatic Leonardo Boff. He also replaced the now-deceased Archbishop of Recife, Dom Helder Camara, with Monsignor José Cardosa – a conservative right-winger – and warned the ex-Bishop of Chiapas in Mexico, Samuel Ruiz, to preach the Gospel ‘in its integrity without Marxist interpretations’.

As if that weren’t enough, the ever-busy Cardinal has used his privileged take on the Truth to set back inter-faith tolerance and religious pluralism a few decades. In 1997 Ratzinger annoyed Buddhists by calling their religion an ‘autoerotic spirituality’ that offers ‘transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations’. And Hinduism, he said, offers ‘false hope’; it guarantees ‘purification’ based on a ‘morally cruel’ concept of reincarnation resembling ‘a continuous circle of hell’. The Cardinal predicted Buddhism would replace Marxism as the Catholic Church’s main enemy this century.

So keep your eyes on those chimney pots when the contest for the next Pope begins. If Joe Ratzinger gets the nod progressive voices inside the Catholic Church will have an even harder time being heard. And it could happen. As Ratzinger himself has said: ‘No-one expected the present Pope to be elected either.’

Ever heard of free will?

Besides, by your argument that if we can do something it's okey, then rape is okay I guess. I mean, if we have the ability to do it, why shouldn't we? Oh, and murder and theft too, while we're at it.

Touche. ;)

The fact that apparently being gay is a sin... if so, why did he give us the ability to do it? :confused:

God gave us free choice to choose our own fates. We can go his way, which follows certain rules, some of which we may not agree with, or we can go our own way. Thats the problem with people nowadays, if we dont think god is right, we will leave his side. That is one thing I will always respect about the popes and Catholics, and thats why I am in the religion. Yes, there are rules and some of them I dont like, but it is gods will. If You cant follow it, fine go to a more liberal progressive religion, but dont expect the pope to change just because society has.

I'm not ready to deal with homosexuality and I'm not a Catholic or the Pope.

I'm not ready to deal with homosexuality and I'm not a Catholic or the Pope.
You're right - you're just a typical Bush-loving gun-totin' American - YEEHAAAWW! (pardon my blunt infantile stereotypes, but, I had to do it).

I read this article about Ratzinger before he became Pope (back in 2000 actually):This article is biased and irrational.

For instance, it claims Ratzinger "was particularly upset by what he saw as destructive, liberalizing influences unleashed at the Second Vatican Council" when in fact he was part of the progressive camp during Vatican II. And then it goes on to quote things completely out of context to make them fit in their argument, a traditional but effective trick. Again the article lies by suggesting that Ratzinger is opposed to social justice, which he has always advocated, by equating social justice and liberation theology, which are two different things.

Benedict XVI is a conservative (at least in matters of religious doctrine; placing the Catholic Church's political stance on any political compass is tricky at best), that's no secret, but this article is a pack of lies.

You're right - you're just a typical Bush-loving gun-totin' American - YEEHAAAWW! (pardon my blunt infantile stereotypes, but, I had to do it).

I don't love Bush, but in the last election he was the lessor of two evils. Yes I am gun-totin' as you say. I just don't like gays.

Personally, I still have yet to meet someone who chose to be gay that I didn't like. I'm sure I'll meet one someday, they're human, just like me, and I know a lot of straight people I don't like too much. I don't think that any pope will be "ready to deal with homosexuality" because he is the spokesperson for a religion that says, 'yes, you can do what you want, but the Bible, the text that we follow, says that God hates it.' I don't appreciate the hatred that people express towards people that are great, but have a sexual prefrence that goes against their belief. It makes me sad.

Not really. The RCC stays true to ideals that do not appeal to most modern people and thats it. You either are a practising catholic or a practising homosexual. What is wrong with that?That's ridiculous. There are gay Catholics out there. Jesus Christ died for ALL sins, not just a chosen few, if homosexuality is in fact a sin.

Anyone who wears blended fabrics (such as cotton/polyester) and anyone who eats pork or shellfish is also sinning against the Lord. Anyone who doesn't play music that glorifies God is sinning against the Lord. Anyone who has ever uttered a curse word or ever talked back to their parents has sinned against the Lord, but I don't see the religious wrong condemning people for that.

This article is biased and irrational.

For instance, it claims Ratzinger "was particularly upset by what he saw as destructive, liberalizing influences unleashed at the Second Vatican Council" when in fact he was part of the progressive camp during Vatican II. And then it goes on to quote things completely out of context to make them fit in their argument, a traditional but effective trick. Again the article lies by suggesting that Ratzinger is opposed to social justice, which he has always advocated, by equating social justice and liberation theology, which are two different things.

Benedict XVI is a conservative (at least in matters of religious doctrine; placing the Catholic Church's political stance on any political compass is tricky at best), that's no secret, but this article is a pack of lies.
Hmmmmm...then point out the specific lies please. It didn't say he wasn't part of the 'progressive camp' (oxymoron?)...so....?

You're right - you're just a typical Bush-loving gun-totin' American - YEEHAAAWW! (pardon my blunt infantile stereotypes, but, I had to do it).
Im not a Typical bushio,
Also im neither Jonnhy Wadd nor the Pope...

yet i not ready to take a stand either way of the Gay issue.

I chooce not to deal with it.

Anyone who wears blended fabrics (such as cotton/polyester) and anyone who eats pork or shellfish is also sinning against the Lord.
Only if you are bound by the old covenant (in other words, if you are a Jew). Not if you are a christian.

Anyone who doesn't play music that glorifies God is sinning against the Lord.

This isnt biblical at all, by the old or new covenant.


Anyone who has ever uttered a curse word or ever talked back to their parents has sinned against the Lord, but I don't see the religious wrong condemning people for that.

Finally some truth. Yes, christian churches speak out against those things. They dont condemn anyone however, not even gays.

gay1: "you know what? the new pope is anti-Gays"
gay2: "How dare him?? what can we do?"
gay1 "We got to do something"
gay3 "but...its not like JP2 was any better...he was not pro Gays at all"
gay1 "...shut up you homophobe biach!! "

Hmmmmm...then point out the specific lies please. It didn't say he wasn't part of the 'progressive camp' (oxymoron?)...so....?I did point out the specific lies. Unless for you saying that someone is opposed to a school of thought when in fact he is part of it isn't a lie (or an error).

I did point out the specific lies. Unless for you saying that someone is opposed to a school of thought when in fact he is part of it isn't a lie (or an error).
Well, especially to someone like myself who doesn't know much about what the various factions called themselves...the article says he was upset by the liberalizing influences, and gives examples of those particular influences. You say he was part of the progressive group...which does not necessarily mean that the liberal influences mentioned came from his faction. So what is the lie exactly?

Is that the only part that bothers you, by the way? What about the rest of it?

(I'm curious...I know passing little about the Pope and the politics surrounding him)

Damn, and I thought this was going to be a lighthearted joke thread when I started it.