NationStates Jolt Archive

when i went to japan they didnt even mention how they treated POW's at hiroshima, a museum in tokyo and a museum in kyoto. They dont mention it at all. They treat it as a non issue.

Just like the vatican does about its past dealings. They are ashamed of it so they ignore it.

I cant say anything about germany tho as I have never been there.

I cant say anything about germany tho as I have never been there.

Oh, they expose it and they, collectively, feel shame for what their ancestors did. Something they shouldn't feel, as they didn't do it, but go tell them that. :p

I cant say anything about germany tho as I have never been there.

They make an official effort, but it's questionable how effective it is. Like the field trips to the old KZ's--I was in Bavaria, and I took an early morning trip to Dachau. German school kids show up, and ignore the meaning of the trip, and essentially, so did the teachers. It was a sort of pro forma event that happened because it was required to, almost like an attempt to induce guilt.

There's a lesson to be learned at the KZ's, and I think the "guilt lesson" is the wrong one.

I was in Bavaria, and I took an early morning trip to Dachau.

I visited there as well. It's deadly quiet...

I dont see why people use the past to insult the Vatican, you cannot blame Germans for the Holocaust
Whoa. "Blaming Germans for the Holocaust" would be analogous to using the medieval horrors to insult Italians; using the medieval horrors to insult the Vatican, which is the institutional continuation of the actual perpetrators, would be analogous to "Blaming the Nazi Party for the Holocaust".

Whoa. "Blaming Germans for the Holocaust" would be analogous to using the medieval horrors to insult Italians; using the medieval horrors to insult the Vatican, which is the institutional continuation of the actual perpetrators, would be analogous to "Blaming the Nazi Party for the Holocaust".

Bearing in mind that the Vatican didn't even fully apologize for the crap.

Bearing in mind that the Vatican didn't even fully apologize for the crap.
Exactly. It's as if the Nazi Party is still running the government, and everybody is all blase' about it, "Oh, they don't run death camps anymore so what's the big deal?"

I visited there as well. It's deadly quiet...

Accurate description, I went alone, because the guys I was traveling with didn't want to wake up so early(and, as Germans, they'd already seen such places). It was incredibly quiet.

1 out of 3 Germans back in the 90's think Germany was better off thanks to Hitler and the Japanese only apologized because they became America's bitch and had no choice just like after WW1 where Germany had to take the blame for starting the war.

What about the Turkish government treatment of non-muslim minorities? they never apologized or even admit they did anything wrong.

Only this year did the Australian prime minister apologies for the treatment of Aboriginal population during our Early years.

Heck if we are going to be that anal. The Italians should Apologize for the mistreatment of barbarians by the Roman Empire over 2000 years ago. Islam should apologize for invading christian lands and practically forcing them to convert by sword-point about 1500 years ago.

The crusades started off as simply the Byzantines trying to reclaim lost land, Europe was trying to protect itself against the Muslim invader.

The Moors (or Morocco) should apologize for invading Spain and Southern France in the name of spreading there faith but oh no that's is not the same thing right. The Byzantines were wiped out simply because they had to HALT Muslim invasion of Europe, the successor to the Roman Empire wiped out because of Muslim aggression.

Allot of nations and old religious organizations have blood on there hands, yet I don't expect them to apologize because in there modern form they are mostly peaceful. it's practically a case of you cant blame the sins of the father on the son, it was a different time and you cannot put our beliefs and morals and put fair judgment on what they did.

It was the frame of mind that existed back then.

1 out of 3 Germans back in the 90's think Germany was better off thanks to Hitler and the Japanese only apologized because they became America's bitch and had no choice just like after WW1 where Germany had to take the blame for starting the war.

What about the Turkish government treatment of non-muslim minorities? they never apologized or even admit they did anything wrong.

Only this year did the Australian prime minister apologies for the treatment of Aboriginal population during our Early years.

Heck if we are going to be that anal. The Italians should Apologize for the mistreatment of barbarians by the Roman Empire over 2000 years ago. Islam should apologize for invading christian lands and practically forcing them to convert by sword-point about 1500 years ago.

The crusades started off as simply the Byzantines trying to reclaim lost land, Europe was trying to protect itself against the Muslim invader.

The Moors (or Morocco) should apologize for invading Spain and Southern France in the name of spreading there faith but oh no that's is not the same thing right. The Byzantines were wiped out simply because they had to HALT Muslim invasion of Europe, the successor to the Roman Empire wiped out because of Muslim aggression.

Allot of nations and old religious organizations have blood on there hands, yet I don't expect them to apologize because in there modern form they are mostly peaceful. it's practically a case of you cant blame the sins of the father on the son, it was a different time and you cannot put our beliefs and morals and put fair judgment on what they did.

It was the frame of mind that existed back then.



Despite your inability to grasp the point, one key difference is none of thos groups (well, most of them) honor and revere the men behind those atrocities, and dont still view them as God's voice on earth.

...it was a different time and you cannot put our beliefs and morals and put fair judgment on what they did.

It was the frame of mind that existed back then.

Of course, if you want to apply that kind of logic strictly, you'd have to also argue that you can't try someone 'now', for murder they committed 'back then'.

Same person, what I am saying is you cannot judge a child for the murder committed by his father TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

The Catholic Church is not the same as all those years ago, hasn't the power, the mind frame or simply the aggression of all those years ago. It is today simply a Religious organization like any other.

If you told the Catholic Church today to call a Crusade they would laugh you out the door, even if they did have the ability to do so.

In the end they are practically completely different.

Do not be a smart arse :P

Same person, what I am saying is you cannot judge a child for the murder committed by his father TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

The Catholic Church is not the same as all those years ago, hasn't the power, the mind frame or simply the aggression of all those years ago. It is today simply a Religious organization like any other.

If you told the Catholic Church today to call a Crusade they would laugh you out the door, even if they did have the ability to do so.

In the end they are practically completely different.

Do not be a smart arse :P

We're not talking about judging the child for the crimes of the parent. The Catholic Church is still the Catholic Church... isn't it?

Saying that it is cleared of all responsibility because it lacks power, the same mind-frame, and the aggression it once had, is nonsensical. Again, it wouldn't hold up (I shouldn't think) in a court of law, as a defence.

"Well, YES, I did murder him... but I was much more aggressive back then"...

Yeah I forgot, the same Pope and Clergyman still makeup the entire Vatican Council.

Catholic Church is still the Catholic Church? infact back then the Catholic Church was more a political entity in the form of the Papal States. OMG that makes it not the same thing.

Infact the arguement would more go.

"That was not done by me, but by a person in the same position as me over 1000 years ago. Surely I cannot be blaimed for what some closed-minded person did over 10 centuries ago?"

They cannot, nobody in law would charge somebody for what somebody else did. The Catholic Church is not a person so stop going on that analogy but the people who control it are, saying they are the same is just stupid and plain ignorant.

Your household might of had murderers living in it before, should you be held accountable because somebody else in the same house who lived ages ago did something bad?

Well, Bavaria isn't all that German =P
:tongue:

You can't claim Prussian heritage if you do something to benefit the Bavarian stigma associated with Germany. It's treason, plain and simple.

Indeed, and I can see the old hatred coming out :p

It may very well be that. German, for example, died a long time ago in the family. No one speaks it, not even my grandfather. So, I didn't grew up with connections to Germany.

Yeah for sure, and there was something I was thinking of and that was also that generally when Germans immigrate they quickly assimilate and integrate into the culture and people of their new country rather than acting as if they are still in the old country.

Exactly. It's as if the Nazi Party is still running the government, and everybody is all blase' about it, "Oh, they don't run death camps anymore so what's the big deal?"

Indeed and because a political party in the past that I support once had conscrpition as part of their platform (something which I oppose) I shouldn't support them.

Of course, if you want to apply that kind of logic strictly, you'd have to also argue that you can't try someone 'now', for murder they committed 'back then'.

No, it would be trying you now for crimes your grandfather committed, even if at the time those actions weren't crimes.

Yeah I forgot, the same Pope and Clergyman still makeup the entire Vatican Council.

Catholic Church is still the Catholic Church? infact back then the Catholic Church was more a political entity in the form of the Papal States. OMG that makes it not the same thing.

Infact the arguement would more go.

"That was not done by me, but by a person in the same position as me over 1000 years ago. Surely I cannot be blaimed for what some closed-minded person did over 10 centuries ago?"

They cannot, nobody in law would charge somebody for what somebody else did. The Catholic Church is not a person so stop going on that analogy but the people who control it are, saying they are the same is just stupid and plain ignorant.

Your household might of had murderers living in it before, should you be held accountable because somebody else in the same house who lived ages ago did something bad?

More like a new CEO saying "well I wasn't CEO when my company took out those loans, so we don't owe you shit!"

More like a new CEO saying "well I wasn't CEO when my company took out those loans, so we don't owe you shit!"

No, it's not really like that at all. 'Owing' isn't the right term.

No, it's not really like that at all. 'Owing' isn't the right term.

How about "It's not my problem. It's my successors problem."

Actual quote from a CEO......

No, it's not really like that at all. 'Owing' isn't the right term.

It's an analogy, doesn't have to be perfect. The point is, organizations are responsible for their actions, even if new management takes over.

It's an analogy, doesn't have to be perfect. The point is, organizations are responsible for their actions, even if new management takes over.

It has to be (well, it should be, at least) accurate though, and that one wasn't.

How about "It's not my problem. It's my successors problem."

Actual quote from a CEO......

That's better, and kinda funny too.

Yeah I forgot, the same Pope and Clergyman still makeup the entire Vatican Council.

Catholic Church is still the Catholic Church? infact back then the Catholic Church was more a political entity in the form of the Papal States. OMG that makes it not the same thing.

Infact the arguement would more go.

"That was not done by me, but by a person in the same position as me over 1000 years ago. Surely I cannot be blaimed for what some closed-minded person did over 10 centuries ago?"

They cannot, nobody in law would charge somebody for what somebody else did. The Catholic Church is not a person so stop going on that analogy but the people who control it are, saying they are the same is just stupid and plain ignorant.

Your household might of had murderers living in it before, should you be held accountable because somebody else in the same house who lived ages ago did something bad?

I assume the 'boss' at the Catholic Church (Jewish chap, I believe. Jay Seuss, or something) is still there? As far as I know, the 'father' and 'son' in this example are pretty much in EXACTLY the same positions they were when the crusades were carried out.

Allegedly.

It has to be (well, it should be, at least) accurate though, and that one wasn't.



How wasn't it? You claim that the catholic church shouldn't have to answer for its actions, because different people ran it then.
In my analogy, different people run the company. Doesn't mean it is absolved of its actions (taking out loans)

Hmm, I'd say the fault with your analogy is that you not talking about an few years or even a decade or two, but centuries and milliena here. Everyone involved is dead and dust by several centuries along with the people that took over after them.

Hmm, I'd say the fault with your analogy is that you not talking about an few years or even a decade or two, but centuries and milliena here. Everyone involved is dead and dust by several centuries along with the people that took over after them.

I'm not sure that's relevant. The Church still is the same entity, and, indeed, seems to take great pride in the fact. You know, the unbroken line apostolic succession and all.

I mean, yeah, it's doing plenty of things today that I think it needs to apologize for, things that are just as bad as the Crusades(such as helping the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa with their lies), but considering they still probably believe that they are in the right on such matters, I doubt they'll apologize.

I'm not sure that's relevant. The Church still is the same entity, and, indeed, seems to take great pride in the fact. You know, the unbroken line apostolic succession and all.

I mean, yeah, it's doing plenty of things today that I think it needs to apologize for, things that are just as bad as the Crusades(such as helping the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa with their lies), but considering they still probably believe that they are in the right on such matters, I doubt they'll apologize.

See PC the poor thing with your analogy would have been saying that because a company used to help transport slaves something it doesn't do now, but the company is still an evil company because of what it may have done in the past. And I would say that some of the lies on the HIV issues in Africa comes from both sides.

See PC the poor thing with your analogy would have been saying that because a company used to help transport slaves something it doesn't do now, but the company is still an evil company because of what it may have done in the past. And I would say that some of the lies on the HIV issues in Africa comes from both sides.

If said company was still around, especially if it was influential, I would think they should apologize for it, yeah.

And what lies does the side that supports using protection spread? Their primary goal is to prevent HIV/AIDS, why would they try to act counter to that?

If said company was still around, especially if it was influential, I would think they should apologize for it, yeah.

[QUOTE]And what lies does the side that supports using protection spread? Their primary goal is to prevent HIV/AIDS, why would they try to act counter to that?

Actually I was unclear with that, when people say the church are spreading HIV across AIDS because they are against condoms isn't strictly true because they are also against sex outside of marriage and sex outside of marriage. So if you followed the Church doctrine to the letter you would only be having sex with one person thus limiting the spreads. And yes some Church officials have spread lies such as the Archbishop that has already been mentioned in this thread, but then a Cardinal was also mentioned that was promoting the use of condoms.

Yes but even if they didn't it wouldn't make them a evil company now, fine go ahead and criticise the church for stuff going on now and say why the Pope is bad because of what he has done but don't say why the church is evil and use actions that they committed a few centuries ago. Surely you have plenty examples today without having to dredge through history looking for something.

Actually I was unclear with that, when people say the church are spreading HIV across AIDS because they are against condoms isn't strictly true because they are also against sex outside of marriage and sex outside of marriage. So if you followed the Church doctrine to the letter you would only be having sex with one person thus limiting the spreads. And yes some Church officials have spread lies such as the Archbishop that has already been mentioned in this thread, but then a Cardinal was also mentioned that was promoting the use of condoms.

Yes but even if they didn't it wouldn't make them a evil company now, fine go ahead and criticise the church for stuff going on now and say why the Pope is bad because of what he has done but don't say why the church is evil and use actions that they committed a few centuries ago. Surely you have plenty examples today without having to dredge through history looking for something.

Here's the thing: it doesn't matter what Church doctrine on condoms is. If they don't want people using condoms, they shouldn't lie and cause death and misery to do so. They should say, "We think that it is a sin to use condoms."

What they are doing now merely promotes HIV/AIDS. It has no other real impact. And if they don't support the actions of the Archbishop, they should speak out against him. Hell, I really think they should have severely punished him, perhaps even taken his position as an Archbishop away, but I'd be happy with something to the effect of "This guy is an asshole. We want to make it clear that lying and aiding in the spread of deadly disease is absolutely unacceptable. "

And if they no longer view Crusading as a good sort of thing to do, then why not apologize for their past actions? Why not admit fault? Again, while the company, to use your analogy, would not necessarily be evil anymore, I would think that they should, if they felt their company's previous actions to be morally wrong, apologize for their companies past actions.

I have an rather hard time beliving that the Catholic church is enaging in an vast plot to encourage the spread of aids. I don't know about Africa but I haven't noticed an vast tendency to overwelmly surport the vatican offical stances on all things at least not in the Americas among the clergy. My mother learned about things like birth control from the catholic priest when she was getting married.

I would like to know what these lies are that the Church is allegely spreading. If I recall the church's offical stance is that birth control is an sin along with sex outside of marrage and that abstence is the only sure way to prevent childbirth. It goes against the belief that life is sacred. Pope John Paul II stated that repeatly when he was alive. I don't know about the current pope.

More like a new CEO saying "well I wasn't CEO when my company took out those loans, so we don't owe you shit!"

It's the Corporations responsibility as a Corporate Citizen to pay the loan, under the law the Corporation is a person or 'Corporate Citizen' that's why they can own land and all that stupid stuff that has screwed up the world.

If a corporation actually did some good yeah I would forgive them, problem there is they do the same thing. Catholic Church in it's modern form donates money to Africa and so many other charities.

Corporations pay to charity simply to get tax deductions, the Church does it as a moral responsibility.

That is why they are different, I an a agnostic so I am not a Catholic. I believe that if Corporations wanted to clean up there image they should actually do some good for a change and yeah over a course of time if they keep doing good I will forgive them for what they have done.

Did that guy honestly just say the Pope who ordered the crusades was still around? man that guy must drink lots of milk.

If the organization generally changes it's colours it should be looked on better, the Catholic Church generally works for the good for it's local community. Christianity today is actually a relatively positive force (save for the wackos like AOC and most of the other newer churches who brainwash there followers)

I have an rather hard time beliving that the Catholic church is enaging in an vast plot to encourage the spread of aids. I don't know about Africa but I haven't noticed an vast tendency to overwelmly surport the vatican offical stances on all things at least not in the Americas among the clergy. My mother learned about things like birth control from the catholic priest when she was getting married.

I would like to know what these lies are that the Church is allegely spreading. If I recall the church's offical stance is that birth control is an sin along with sex outside of marrage and that abstence is the only sure way to prevent childbirth. It goes against the belief that life is sacred. Pope John Paul II stated that repeatly when he was alive. I don't know about the current pope.

It was discussed earlier in the thread-- an Archbishop in Africa tells people that Western companies intentionally infect condoms with HIV in a plot to destroy Africa. This, of course, leads to them not using them, which increases the spread of HIV/AIDS. Now, there's no way that said Archbishop could not have foreseen this consequence-- there's no way he could be that stupid and still manage to string two words together.

The Church refuses to condemn his actions in any way, so far as I know. Any halfway decent person would have been immediately disgusted upon finding out about them.

You'd be surpised... Still they might yet get around to doing something about him still but it likely will not be something everyone will know about unless he does something even stupider and gets himself excommunated. The church for better or worse doesn't like airings its problems and how it deals with it to the whole world. I wouldn't be surpised if he got warned privately but he have to do something even more stupider for it to be something public.

I have an rather hard time beliving that the Catholic church is enaging in an vast plot to encourage the spread of aids. I don't know about Africa but I haven't noticed an vast tendency to overwelmly surport the vatican offical stances on all things at least not in the Americas among the clergy. My mother learned about things like birth control from the catholic priest when she was getting married.

I would like to know what these lies are that the Church is allegely spreading. If I recall the church's offical stance is that birth control is an sin along with sex outside of marrage and that abstence is the only sure way to prevent childbirth. It goes against the belief that life is sacred. Pope John Paul II stated that repeatly when he was alive. I don't know about the current pope.

See the thing is that it is one Archbishop said this which instantly means that the entire church is saying this despite other church leaders doing opposite actions things. The Vatican does indeed say that using condoms is a sin and that people shouldn't use them.

You'd be surpised... Still they might yet get around to doing something about him still but it likely will not be something everyone will know about unless he does something even stupider and gets himself excommunated. The church for better or worse doesn't like airings its problems and how it deals with it to the whole world. I wouldn't be surpised if he got warned privately but he have to do something even more stupider for it to be something public.

Well, that's just unacceptable to me, because it gives a signal to other Catholic officials that what he did was okay. As far as they know, the Church didn't take action against it and thus implicitly condones it. Again, it's not as if he's some backwater priest, he's a damn Archbishop!
And it's not like he made a small mistake. He deliberately aided in the spread of a horrible and incurable disease. To be honest, I think he is guilty of crimes against humanity and ought to suffer legal consequences, but that will definitely never happen. If he had any decency, any at all, he would resign his office immediately and apologize.

See the thing is that it is one Archbishop said this which instantly means that the entire church is saying this despite other church leaders doing opposite actions things. The Vatican does indeed say that using condoms is a sin and that people shouldn't use them.

Then they should make it clear to their priests to use that their moral views, and only that, should be used as the reason not to use condoms, and that it is utterly unacceptable to spread lies that lead to disease and death. The fact that they don't think that stopping lies that lead to horrible deaths is important says much about them, I think.

Well, that's just unacceptable to me, because it gives a signal to other Catholic officials that what he did was okay. As far as they know, the Church didn't take action against it and thus implicitly condones it. Again, it's not as if he's some backwater priest, he's a damn Archbishop!
And it's not like he made a small mistake. He deliberately aided in the spread of a horrible and incurable disease. To be honest, I think he is guilty of crimes against humanity and ought to suffer legal consequences, but that will definitely never happen. If he had any decency, any at all, he would resign his office immediately and apologize.

Hmm I'd say if he shuts up about what he was saying, that would state at least to local officals something happened to him to cause him to back off. Also as an bishop or an Archbishop his authority does not go beyond the locality he is presiding over. There are thousands of bishops and archbishops, he is an small fish in an ocean. Now if it was an cardinal I would be worried as that is an high offical of the church, someone who is supose represent the intrests of the pope and the catholic church as an whole.

Here is my stance on gay marriage:

In the state of north carolina, it is legal to marry your 14 year old first cousin, as long as he or she is of the opposite sex of you.

if you can marry your teenage cousin, gays should be allowed to get married...

Hmm I'd say if he shuts up about what he was saying, that would state at least to local officals something happened to him to cause him to back off.

But that does not undo the damage his lies already did.
What do you believe the RC Church should do to remedy that problem, besides urging the world to keep seeing homosexuality as a crime ?

But that does not undo the damage his lies already did.
What do you believe the RC Church should do to remedy that problem, besides urging the world to keep seeing homosexuality as a crime ?

So we are back to the title of this thread? Though that has nothing to do with it going off the only quote we were given and not a link to the article.

Here is my stance on gay marriage:

In the state of north carolina, it is legal to marry your 14 year old first cousin, as long as he or she is of the opposite sex of you.

if you can marry your teenage cousin, gays should be allowed to get married...

Does it go the other way too?

Say if we allow gays to marry than we should allow incestous relationships? How about bigamy?

Now the whole reason for this was me saying that because in one state you are allowed to marry your first cousin is not a good enough reason to allow gay marriage

But that does not undo the damage his lies already did.
What do you believe the RC Church should do to remedy that problem, besides urging the world to keep seeing homosexuality as a crime ?

I don't know how much damage he actually did. What I got from the article was that this is what he said to some reporter. IIRC there was no mention of him preaching this stupid thought to the members of his church..

My, so many things happens when you're sleeping...

On the AIDS thing: In case you haven't figured it out, the modus operandi of the catholic church is to take the bad man who said/did something stupid and ship him elsewhere to silence the problem. It is further the modus operandi to NEVER take the blame or issue an apology. One of the reasoning behind it is "If people see that we make mistakes, they'll begin to doubt their faith!!!", the other reasoning is "don't admit to anything, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law". Yes, the vatican does have lawyers.

Is it right? Hell no, if you ask me. I don't agree to the their way of thinking. But I'm not about to jump ship and become a protestant now because I see that most organized religions pull stupid shit like that. So I take what I was looking for in religion: a set of moral values and ignore the rest. Heck, I even ignore some moral values the catholic taught me (like women not being equal).

On the crusades thing: They did apologize, trying very hard not to say the previous popes were wrong. Damned church doctrine had them dance on tip toe on that one. But it is wrong to say the catholic church still endorse past atrocities and it is especially wrong (I'm look at you H2) to say we revere our past popes. NO catholic I know goes down on his knees and prays to Pope Pious 5 for guidance. You might have a point if we made them saints (those we see as being right) and not as the political head of the church. Hell, we even said the popes could be wrong most of the times. The church did learn from it's mistakes... eventually.

Yes, the vatican does have lawyers.

Given that the vatican is rather wealthy I imagine they're top shelf lawyers to boot.

Yeah for sure, and there was something I was thinking of and that was also that generally when Germans immigrate they quickly assimilate and integrate into the culture and people of their new country rather than acting as if they are still in the old country.

Indeed, which tbh, is quite a pity because traditions and heritage from the mother country should be kept alive as much as possible, even if the family in question moves to an entire different country. On my grandmother's side, they're Portuguese. And Portuguese also died in the family from lack of my elders teaching it to younger generations.

I love languages and it's a shame, after having such a culturally diverse family, that these 2 languages (German and Portuguese) died in my family.

LMAO at the irony of sending gays to jail as punishment for being gay.

to death for men and to 100 floggings for women in IranI totally knew that even Iranians appreciate lesbian porn.

... And spankings.

LMAO at the irony of sending gays to jail as punishment for being gay.

I don't think I've ever read anything stupider in the recent times.

Who are we to play the hand of God and tell someone who or what they can love? Do we dare try and tell someone that our wish is higher than their free-will? Then their happiness? Those people make me sick.

Who are we to play the hand of God and tell someone who or what they can love? Do we dare try and tell someone that our wish is higher than their free-will? Then their happiness? Those people make me sick.

Err... the Pope? The one who's supposed to KNOW the will of god regarding such things?

Err... the Pope? The one who's supposed to KNOW the will of god regarding such things?

Only when sitting in a certain chair IIRC.

Only when sitting in a certain chair IIRC.

You don't recall correctly. It's only when he preface his statements with very specifics sentences telling us this is dogma and not to be argued.

FYI, this stance on homosexuality hasn't been prefaced. Yet.

Why is the Vatican so interested in people that fuck other people their butt?

To me, it seems as anal fixation.

The Catholic church is a nut job on a lot of it's rulings. I just hope the damn thing dies off sooner than later.

The Catholic church is a nut job on a lot of it's rulings. I just hope the damn thing dies off sooner than later.

They are not alone. So many other religions do not like homosexuals.

In the West, homosexuals are rather lucky. Some people do not like their way of living, but at least they can have a normal life.

In most islam countries, you would be jailed and sometimes even killed.

They are not alone. So many other religions do not like homosexuals.

In the West, homosexuals are rather lucky. Some people do not like their way of living, but at least they can have a normal life.

In most islam countries, you would be jailed and sometimes even killed.
I'd be just as happy if religion in general died off.

I'd be just as happy if religion in general died off.

No, no. We are really in need for stupid people.

Irrational and discriminatory belief system is irrational and discriminatory.

I'd be just as happy if religion in general died off.

I wouldn't. Have you never heard some of those scary people declare things like "if there is no God, why should I not murder, rape and pillage?"

Think of it. Think of removing religion and letting people who genuinely do not know the answer to that question roam free.

I wouldn't. Have you never heard some of those scary people declare things like "if there is no God, why should I not murder, rape and pillage?"

Think of it. Think of removing religion and letting people who genuinely do not know the answer to that question roam free.

Yeah. It's funny that those people think that they're proving atheists are immoral, isn't it?

I wouldn't. Have you never heard some of those scary people declare things like "if there is no God, why should I not murder, rape and pillage?"

Think of it. Think of removing religion and letting people who genuinely do not know the answer to that question roam free.
But if you retain religion, they still roam free, and are encouraged to murder, rape, or pillage people like me.

I wouldn't. Have you never heard some of those scary people declare things like "if there is no God, why should I not murder, rape and pillage?"

Think of it. Think of removing religion and letting people who genuinely do not know the answer to that question roam free.

I don't need God watching over my shoulder to stop me murdering raping and pillaging. Those who do are childish and irresponsible.

You don't recall correctly. It's only when he preface his statements with very specifics sentences telling us this is dogma and not to be argued.
Like with the pronouncements that people with differing beliefs should be burned alive; or that no-one should publish books teaching "the pernicious Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth is subject to a double motion, rotating daily around a central axis and revolving yearly around the Sun."

You don't recall correctly. It's only when he preface his statements with very specifics sentences telling us this is dogma and not to be argued.

FYI, this stance on homosexuality hasn't been prefaced. Yet.

The "sitting in a certain chair" is not a literal statement. The Pope speaks infallable only when he speaks "Ex Cathedra" or "From the Throne" (the certain chair he's sitting in - figuratively speaking). When he prefaces the statement with the words Ex Cathedra, he's speaking "infallably."

To my knowledge, this has only been done twice in the history of the Church, once in modern times - concerning the Ascension of the Virgin Mary. I doubt that he'll apply this to homosexuality or anything that in any way could have a real world application, it's only going to be reserved for things that are strictly theological, because the Church needs wiggle room when it finds that a Pope has backed them into a doctrinal corner. Of course, I could be wrong - I have been wrong (not often) in the past.

To my knowledge, this has only been done twice in the history of the Church
No, no, no. RECENTLY the Popes are very wary using the "magic words", but it used to be a matter of routine for almost every pronouncement of the Popes to include such phrasings ("we enjoin upon the community of the faithful, by virtue of our apostolic authority...").

No, no, no. RECENTLY the Popes are very wary using the "magic words", but it used to be a matter of routine for almost every pronouncement of the Popes to include such phrasings ("we enjoin upon the community of the faithful, by virtue of our apostolic authority...").

I found this in Skepticwiki

[edit] Papal Infallibility
According to Catholic dogma, the Pope is the final authority on questions of faith, a doctrine called infallibility. This becomes a tricky doctrine to use, since throughout history, questions of faith have often become objects of science. Usually then, papal infallibility has been used to justify matters apparently forever beyond the reach of science: the nature of God, the nature of salvation, etc. [7]

Contrary to popular belief, not every statement from the Holy See is considered infallible. The Pope may make political statements as head of the Vatican State, and learned conclusions based on the vast collections of literature and research done at the Vatican. For example, the determination that the Shroud of Turin is genuine is considered a matter of human discovery, not faith, and any statements from the Pope concerning this result are not considered infallible.

Strictly speaking, only statements that the Pope makes ex cathedra ("from the throne") are considered infallible. Only twice has a Pope spoken ex cathedra, once on the infallibility of Popes, and once on the immaculate conception, according to which Mary is assumed to have been conceived without original sin. Some Catholics may consider the Pope infallible when speaking about matters of faith, but this is not a part of Catholic dogma

I wouldn't. Have you never heard some of those scary people declare things like "if there is no God, why should I not murder, rape and pillage?"

Think of it. Think of removing religion and letting people who genuinely do not know the answer to that question roam free.

What about all the murder, rape and pillage that went on in the name of God?

People declaring God does not exist are still bound by the laws of the land.

Err... the Pope? The one who's supposed to KNOW the will of god regarding such things?

How can any man say he absolutely knows the will of God without making himelf a God in turn?

Only twice has a Pope spoken ex cathedra, once on the infallibility of Popes, and once on the immaculate conception, according to which Mary is assumed to have been conceived without original sin
The ex cathedra declaration on "infallibility", by Pius IX and the Vatican I council in 1870, says that: what makes a Papal pronouncement ex cathedra, and therefore "infallible", is if the pronouncement in question is made in his capacity as the apostolic successor to Peter, and is a command to the whole community to obey some moral decision or to believe some point of faith.

Now, SINCE 1870, Popes have avoided prefacing their pronouncements with these phrasings, that they are speaking in their apostolic capacity and commanding obedience/belief from the whole community, except for the "Immaculate Conception" pronouncement. The problem is: BEFORE 1870, it was routine to use such phrasings, and the 1870 pronouncement retroactively makes all those old clinkers "infallible". Unless you believe that papal infallibility was newly invented in 1870, and cannot be applied retroactively; but the Catholic Church says that its doctrines are never newly invented, rather it is always just a clarification of what the true church has always "really" held going back all the way to the apostles.... yeah right.

Yeah, more or less.

(see today's headlines of La Repubblica, www.repubblica.it)

The Vatican has voiced its position AGAINST the proposal at the UN, coming from the French government, asking all UN countries to eliminate prosecution of homosexuality. Rev.Lombardi (spokesman for the pope) says in an interview to La Repubblica that "It [the proposal] would introduce a declaration with political value, which could have impact over laws. That would lead to mark as 'violating human rights' any law that doesn't equate all sexual preferences" (translation mine, sorry for eventual inaccuracies).

It must be noted that in some countries where homosexuality is considered a crime, the death penalty is applied.

Homosexuals can be sentenced:
up to 3 years in jail in Morocco
from 2 months up to 2 years in jail in Algeria, plus a fine
up to 5 years in jail in Egypt, plus a fine
up to 1 year in jail in Lebanon, plus a fine
to death by stoning for married men who have an homosexual intercourse in Saudi Arabia (for bachelors, jail and flogging)
to death for men and to 100 floggings for women in Iran
up to 10 years in jail in Bahrein
to death in Afghanistan (not applied since years, though)
from 2 years to 10 years in jail in Pakistan (though local tribes apply stoning)
to 7 years in jail for homosexuals aged 21 or more, and to 10 years for homosexuals aged 20 or less in Kuwait.
to life in jail for male homosexuals in Uganda
to death by stoning in Mauritania and Nigeria

(just some examples...)

Interestingly enough, isn't the Vatican one of those countries who always blabber about "sanctity of life" when it comes to abortion? Doesn't the death sentence infringe the "sanctity of life"?

Vatican = bunch of old fools.

End of story.

The ex cathedra declaration on "infallibility", by Pius IX and the Vatican I council in 1870, says that: what makes a Papal pronouncement ex cathedra, and therefore "infallible", is if the pronouncement in question is made in his capacity as the apostolic successor to Peter, and is a command to the whole community to obey some moral decision or to believe some point of faith.

Now, SINCE 1870, Popes have avoided prefacing their pronouncements with these phrasings, that they are speaking in their apostolic capacity and commanding obedience/belief from the whole community, except for the "Immaculate Conception" pronouncement. The problem is: BEFORE 1870, it was routine to use such phrasings, and the 1870 pronouncement retroactively makes all those old clinkers "infallible". Unless you believe that papal infallibility was newly invented in 1870, and cannot be applied retroactively; but the Catholic Church says that its doctrines are never newly invented, rather it is always just a clarification of what the true church has always "really" held going back all the way to the apostles.... yeah right.

In the catholic church the majority of infallible pronouncements are by the 21 ecumenical councils most recent of which are Vatican I and II which decisions are concidered cannons and faliure to follow is punishable by Anathema, more commonly known as excommunation. Also concidered infallible are Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which are teaching of which all Bishops of the Church (including the Pope) universally agree on, and is also considered infallible. An example of Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the reservation of ordination to males is infallible which was conformed by John Paul the II but not by "Ex Cathedra."


Of Popal pronouncements concidered ex cathedra, I know of only seven concidered to be so; The Only Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon; The Only Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon; Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople; Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment; Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical; Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical; Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

What do you expect from an all-male club that is full of homosexuals who prey on children and make rules that largely govern women, their bodies and their bedrooms?

You expect consistency from this bunch?

That is why they expect you to "have faith"--because they are well aware that more than half the world (consisting of the world-wide female population) know for a fact that they are silly self-serving men who cannot figure out how to get through life without oppressing someone.

They are very republican in that regard!

What do you expect from an all-male club that is full of homosexuals who prey on children

Pssst!

Homosexual != Pedophile.

Pssst!

Homosexual != Pedophile.

He didn't imply that homosexual = pedophile. He said that the Church was full of Homosexuals who happened to prey on children

It's simplistic, though, even for the sake of humor or impact, to imply that every priest is gay or that every priest is a sexual predator. However, in a situation where one's sexuality has to be sublimated with God, a certain perversity is inherent.

I still stand by my opinion.

with any luck, the more irrelivant the vatican makes it self, the more people will see through the absurdity of its claims of infallability.

Wait a minute....


Since when do we care what the Vatican is telling us???

Wait a minute....

Since when do we care what the Vatican is telling us???

Apparently, someone did. Hence this thread.

Since when do we care what the Vatican is telling us???

Let us see. The Pope is the appointed head of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics comprise well over 50% of all Christians, and therefor the majority of Christians perceives him as leader.

Following the popular reasoning of democratic process, he is therefor the leader of ALL Christians - Catholic or not.

Compare this with how Barack Obama iwill be the president of all US citizens, including the ones who are not democrats or for other reasons did not support him, no matter how much those people whine it should not be so.

Christians who do not agree with this reasoning obviously hate freedom, and can therefor be ignored.

About 30% of the worlds population identifies itself as Christian. So I guess the Pope is important

Of Popal pronouncements concidered ex cathedra, I know of only seven concidered to be so
According to what was stated by Pius IX and Vatican I, there are hundreds of papal pronouncements which should be considered so, as they contained the phrasings which supposedly characterize ex cathedra statements. I guess, then, that Pius IX was wrong about what an ex cathedra statement consists of: he thought he was speaking infallibly, but he was mistaken.
He didn't imply that homosexual = pedophile. He said that the Church was full of Homosexuals who happened to prey on children
Those who prey on children are "pedophiles": whether they get ahold of boys or girls is typically a matter of indifference to them (they are attracted to the age, not the gender), and is irrelevant to their sexual orientation (if they have one: some are "obligate pedophiles" who have no attractions to adults of either gender). Those pedophiles who do have adult sexual attractions are overwhelmingly heterosexual, regardless of the gender of their child victims.

No. Wrong. The Pope doesn't want to kill people for being homosexual.

Actually, the Church is opposed to the death penalty as well. My own archbishop is in charge of the US bishops against the death penalty and abortion and for the sanctity of life. (Cardinal DiNardo)

Homosexual activity is not approved of by the Church, for reasons that I happen to agree with but am not really qualified to explain. Because they don't approve of it, why would they be party to a political action that does condone such activity.

That would be like the head of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) publicly approving a reduction in sentencing for DUI.

Homosexual activity does not and can not lead to production of life. It just doesn't work that way. Therefore, it is sexual conduct that is circumventing the purpose of sex: reproduction. That's lust, and its a sin.

This reasoning seems correct.

Which now leads us to the important question:
Why is lust a sin ? What is so bad about it ?

This reasoning seems correct.

Which now leads us to the important question:
Why is lust a sin ? What is so bad about it ?

Because it's fun.

What do you expect from an all-male club that is full of homosexuals who prey on children and make rules that largely govern women, their bodies and their bedrooms?

You expect consistency from this bunch?

That is why they expect you to "have faith"--because they are well aware that more than half the world (consisting of the world-wide female population) know for a fact that they are silly self-serving men who cannot figure out how to get through life without oppressing someone.

They are very republican in that regard!

Its not actually an all-male club. There are many women who are members of the Catholic Church and who have influence on the decisions of the Church.

There's also a good reason why only men can be priests. Jesus Christ was a man. When the priest acts in persona Christi, he actually takes on the substance of Christ. Christ was a man - priest is a man.

Your assertion that all priests are homosexual is absurd. So is your assertion that they are all pedophiles. A relatively small number of priests have done some horrible things, and it gets put in the news a lot because of the betrayal of their position of trust and authority.

There's also a good reason why only men can be priests. Jesus Christ was a man. When the priest acts in persona Christi, he actually takes on the substance of Christ. Christ was a man - priest is a man.

Jesus probably also had black hair and brown eyes. Does that mean that blonde people with blue eyes can not be priests ?

No. Wrong. The Pope doesn't want to kill people for being homosexual.
He does, however, want to stop anybody from interfering with those who kill homosexuals. That's not much of a distinction.

Its not actually an all-male club. There are many women who are members of the Catholic Church and who have influence on the decisions of the Church.

There's also a good reason why only men can be priests. Jesus Christ was a man. When the priest acts in persona Christi, he actually takes on the substance of Christ. Christ was a man - priest is a man.

Your assertion that all priests are homosexual is absurd. So is your assertion that they are all pedophiles. A relatively small number of priests have done some horrible things, and it gets put in the news a lot because of the betrayal of their position of trust and authority.

Consider the Last Supper, which was a Passover Seder. As near as I can figure, Christ's actions at the Seder approximated the role of the mother. So he was, in a very real sense usurping the role of the woman at the Seder - so, in essence, the priesthood was a role stolen from women and it should go back to them. (Any Jews here, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the role of mother at the Seder - in which case, I still won't retract my statement about the priesthood being stolen from women because priesthood is supposed to be a nurturing position, hence maternal).

No. Wrong. The Pope doesn't want to kill people for being homosexual.

No, he just doesn't want the UN to call for others to stop doing it.

Homosexual activity is not approved of by the Church, for reasons that I happen to agree with but am not really qualified to explain.

If you aren't able to explain them, how do you know you agree with them?

Because they don't approve of it, why would they be party to a political action that does condone such activity.

Allowing something is not the same as condoning it.


Your assertion that all priests are homosexual is absurd. So is your assertion that they are all pedophiles. A relatively small number of priests have done some horrible things, and it gets put in the news a lot because of the betrayal of their position of trust and authority.

Well, that and the fact that the church hierarchy actively covered these incidents up.

Why would you punish somebody for a lifestyle choice?

Why would you punish somebody for a lifestyle choice?

I assume you're looking for a more sophisticated answer than "because they're morons".

Why would you punish somebody for a lifestyle choice?

Oh, that actually is quite reasonable. If it is your lifestyle choice to eat babies, murder old ladies and listen to Celine Dion I feel perfectly justified to strive towards your punishment.

Thing is.. my explanation for this justification goes a little bit further than "an old book told me". I *myself*, and not an old book, am the one considering your actions "sinful".

Because really. Dion ?

Jesus probably also had black hair and brown eyes. Does that mean that blonde people with blue eyes can not be priests ?

I guess only Middle-Easterners and Jews can be priests too.

I guess only Middle-Easterners and Jews can be priests too.

Well...

TO LIFE! TO LIFE! LeChaym!