|
Alright, enough religious debate. If you want to talk about Pope Benedict and what he specifically did or didn't do, go ahead. But no more general discussion on the merits or ills of the Catholic church or their history.
-page 12 |
Austria24416 Posts
On February 12 2013 00:21 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:15 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 12 2013 00:11 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:54 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:27 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:
[quote]
It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. Condoms tearing is not what's causing the problems african peoples have with AIDS. Neither is anal sex. It's the fact that they don't have condoms. That's the real problem. And by saying that "it might be ok to use condoms in some cases if you're a male prostitute, ...", he's certainly not gonna help that problem. More like it's the fact that people who have AIDS have sex anyway and spread AIDS even when advised not to is the real problem. And the "quote" you provided is not true. I quoted that from the fucking article he posted, WTF. Those are his exact words. Stop replying if you're not gonna bother checking first. But they're humans. Sex is a natural instinct they have. Most of them lack the education to fully understand what AIDS is. Just telling them "well, don't have sex then" isn't gonna solve the fucking problem. Yes it's theoretically correct but it ignores the fucking problem. It's easy to talk from that golden chair of his but he's completely fucking delusional if he thinks that advising abstinence is gonna solve anything. How about you do something practical first that actually helps (like, I dunno... giving them condoms?) and actually teachign them wtf AIDS is so they'll understand why it might not be a good idea for them to have sex. Those are not his exact words. We can't have a productive discussion if you are going to blatantly lie like that. Human beings also have a natural instinct to eat. Do you believe that people should eat until they weigh 600 lbs? And why do you believe they are incapable of practicing self control? Because they're Africans?Practicing abstinence doesn't ignore the problem, it addresses it directly and provides a solution. Using condoms allows the problem to continue. WTF It's because the population in which AIDS is most problematic doesn't have proper education to understand what AIDS is. They won't understand why they shouldn't be having sex. It's fucking natural to have sex. It's like telling people who are standing in the rain without an umbrella to not leave the house when it's raining, meanwhile holding 5 umbrellas in your hands. Are you correct? Yes, you're correct. But you could also fucking give them an umbrella to solve the problem at hand first, which is that they're getting soaked by the rain. You did not answer my question. It's also natural to eat. But does that mean there is no situation where you should probably exercise self control when eating? Actually, it's more like a doctor telling someone to stay inside their house if they have a contagious, life threatening manbearpig flu. And then the person wants to go outside anyway because they think that if they wear a face mask, they can lower the chance of exposure to other people. But the doctor tells them that even with the mask, they risk exposing people anyway, so they should probably just stay inside. And then the person goes outside without a mask, infects everyone. And then, he goes and blames the doctor. Yes, it's human nature to want to have sex. But it's not human nature to be infected with HIV. So if you have HIV, you need to be conscious of that and not engage in activities that might harm other people. That's a completely different thing, that's why I didn't answer. You will stop eating at some point because your body will naturally tell you so. Will your body stop you from having sex when you're in love with someone and it's getting to that point in your relationship? Your example is completely different from what I'm saying though. Your example includes the person already knowing the consequences of what could happen and ignoring them. READ MY POST. I bolded it for you. If you love someone, would you risk infecting them with a terrible disease? LOL my example is almost identical to the situation except instead of abstinence from intercourse, it's abstinence from leaving the house. Sounds like you're in a corner. So why not educate them on the consequence of what could happen so that they can make an educated decision not to expose their loved ones to AIDS, instead of encouraging them to do something that doesn't solve the problem? I don't think the church is hiding from people the consequences of having intercourse while infected with AIDS. Do you have a source on this?
WTF
Like, seriously, wtf. How can you still ignore what I'm saying. You're arguing against things I'm not saying and ignoring things I am saying. I'll say it again, as clearly as possible.
AIDS is most problematic if people are not educated enough to understand it. The solution to that is to give them fucking condoms WHILE educating them and then possibly talk about abstinence. That solves the problem at hand and gives a solution to solve the problem over a long time.
If you just say "we're gonna educate them and tell them that they shouldn't have sex" and meanwhile they've had sex X times already, spreading the disease while you could've just given them condoms AND educated them so they wouldn't have to rely on condoms later, then you're a fucking idiot. And that's exactly what I considered him.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 12 2013 00:23 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:21 Sandermatt wrote:
How much is known about the election process for the next pope? I know the cardinals will elevt, but how does a cardinal "race for the pope position"? Was wondering about that too. How long could the maximum time without a pope in theory be?
Google search turned this up (http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.ca):
"The longest period of time during which the Catholic Church did not have a pope was from November 1268 to September 1, 1271, almost 3 years. This period is known as the interregnum (between reigns). The reasons were mostly political. It would have taken even longer, but the cardinals were locked in the Palazzo dei Papi di Viterbo to vote. They were given only bread and water and even the roof was removed making conditions very uncomfortable.
Eventually, Pope Gregory X was elected."
EDIT: I suppose the theoretical maximum would be infinite.
|
Canada13378 Posts
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote:
Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works 
|
On February 12 2013 00:24 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:17 Butterednuts wrote:
He's 85 years old and no longer feels that he is of sound body and mind to lead an entire ministry. More power to him to come to this conclusion without being forced into it - this seems entirely voluntary from this perspective. I'm not religious at all nor do I really care at all. He would be dead soon anyways, best he enjoy the remainder of his life. What happens to popes when they resign? Do they get any special church honors? benefits? or do they leave the priesthood entirely?
Last time he moved to a cloister (I hope this is the correct english word) for the rest of his live.
|
On February 12 2013 00:27 Sandermatt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:24 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On February 12 2013 00:17 Butterednuts wrote:
He's 85 years old and no longer feels that he is of sound body and mind to lead an entire ministry. More power to him to come to this conclusion without being forced into it - this seems entirely voluntary from this perspective. I'm not religious at all nor do I really care at all. He would be dead soon anyways, best he enjoy the remainder of his life. What happens to popes when they resign? Do they get any special church honors? benefits? or do they leave the priesthood entirely? Last time he moved to a cloister (I hope this is the correct english word) for the rest of his live.
Monastery is the english word I think
On February 12 2013 00:26 Sandermatt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:23 Zandar wrote:On February 12 2013 00:21 Sandermatt wrote:
How much is known about the election process for the next pope? I know the cardinals will elevt, but how does a cardinal "race for the pope position"? Was wondering about that too. How long could the maximum time without a pope in theory be? Last time a pope resigned they couldn't agree for two years. They elected than one pope that barely spoke latin and five month later he resigned. So theoretically it could take long, but they want to find a new one unti easter.
On February 12 2013 00:27 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:23 Zandar wrote:On February 12 2013 00:21 Sandermatt wrote:
How much is known about the election process for the next pope? I know the cardinals will elevt, but how does a cardinal "race for the pope position"? Was wondering about that too. How long could the maximum time without a pope in theory be? Google search turned this up (http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.ca): "The longest period of time during which the Catholic Church did not have a pope was from November 1268 to September 1, 1271, almost 3 years. This period is known as the interregnum (between reigns). The reasons were mostly political. It would have taken even longer, but the cardinals were locked in the Palazzo dei Papi di Viterbo to vote. They were given only bread and water and even the roof was removed making conditions very uncomfortable. Eventually, Pope Gregory X was elected." EDIT: I suppose the theoretical maximum would be infinite.
Thanks for answering that. So quite a long time possibly.
|
On February 12 2013 00:23 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:21 Sandermatt wrote:
How much is known about the election process for the next pope? I know the cardinals will elevt, but how does a cardinal "race for the pope position"? Was wondering about that too. How long could the maximum time without a pope in theory be?
There is no maximum time in which a pope has to be chosen. The longest period for an election using the current process in which the cardinals choose a new pope is to this date 3 years (1268-1271). Since that time the cardinals are locked up untill a new pope is chosen.
As far as I know every unmarried catholic man can declare he wants to become pope and then the cardinals will vote. The people who don´t have a chance of winning step out of the race along the way and lend their support to somebody else. After each vote the paper ballots will be burned and depending on if a quorum for a new pope has been met the smoke will be grey or white. White meaning a new pope has been chosen and the doors can be unlocked.
|
On February 12 2013 00:21 Sandermatt wrote:
How much is known about the election process for the next pope? I know the cardinals will elevt, but how does a cardinal "race for the pope position"?
Cardinals don't "race" or campaign for the papal election. The Conclave is the election process held by the college of cardinals (which is a rather small body). They hear two "sermons" or state of the union addresses about where the Catholic church presently is in its mission, influence, and it's general state, and to suggest the qualities necessary for the new Pope. Then they vote in the closed Sistine Chapel by ballot, (usually narrowing down the choices to two or three and disuading the Cardinals from courtesy votes), and annouce that a new Pope has been chosen by burning the ballots and making a white smoke signal for the people waiting in Vatican Square for the annoucement/presentation.
To read up on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave
|
Austria24416 Posts
Yeah, the conclave can theoretically run for an unlimited amount of time I believe.
|
All you people thinking there's going to be a liberal pope are crazy.
The next pope's going to be a conservative from Africa/Asia/South America, as those are Catholicism's growth areas. Electing a liberal European/North American pope will alienate the demographics that are the only hope for the church staying as big as it is.
|
On February 12 2013 00:27 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote:
Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope. Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
female priests won't happen because it's at the bottom of the Church priorities atm.
The main problem is the conflict between keeping the institution as much united as possible, which means talking to people who fundamentally disagree with Vatican II, and the modernisation work both toward other religions (Ratzinger did a good job on that matter) and considering the gap between the Church views and society views, especially on sexuality and marriage. You add the fact that the institution is governed by people coming from an area where the Curch is drastically weakened and you've a slight insight of the clusterfuck that's going on, ignoring all the inner scandals.
|
On February 12 2013 00:27 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote:
Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope. Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
It'll be an interesting election!
|
On February 12 2013 00:27 Sandermatt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:24 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On February 12 2013 00:17 Butterednuts wrote:
He's 85 years old and no longer feels that he is of sound body and mind to lead an entire ministry. More power to him to come to this conclusion without being forced into it - this seems entirely voluntary from this perspective. I'm not religious at all nor do I really care at all. He would be dead soon anyways, best he enjoy the remainder of his life. What happens to popes when they resign? Do they get any special church honors? benefits? or do they leave the priesthood entirely? Last time he moved to a cloister (I hope this is the correct english word) for the rest of his live.
I just read it was declared that he would retire to Castle Gandolfo (the summerpalace of the church so to speak. It lays in the hills outside of rome where it´s cooler in the summer and that´s also where the pope spends a lot of his time during these hot months) although it wasn´t really clear to me if this would only be for the time till a new pope was chosen or untill he died.
|
On February 12 2013 00:26 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:21 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 12 2013 00:15 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 12 2013 00:11 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:54 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:27 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
[quote]
lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse.
But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. Condoms tearing is not what's causing the problems african peoples have with AIDS. Neither is anal sex. It's the fact that they don't have condoms. That's the real problem. And by saying that "it might be ok to use condoms in some cases if you're a male prostitute, ...", he's certainly not gonna help that problem. More like it's the fact that people who have AIDS have sex anyway and spread AIDS even when advised not to is the real problem. And the "quote" you provided is not true. I quoted that from the fucking article he posted, WTF. Those are his exact words. Stop replying if you're not gonna bother checking first. But they're humans. Sex is a natural instinct they have. Most of them lack the education to fully understand what AIDS is. Just telling them "well, don't have sex then" isn't gonna solve the fucking problem. Yes it's theoretically correct but it ignores the fucking problem. It's easy to talk from that golden chair of his but he's completely fucking delusional if he thinks that advising abstinence is gonna solve anything. How about you do something practical first that actually helps (like, I dunno... giving them condoms?) and actually teachign them wtf AIDS is so they'll understand why it might not be a good idea for them to have sex. Those are not his exact words. We can't have a productive discussion if you are going to blatantly lie like that. Human beings also have a natural instinct to eat. Do you believe that people should eat until they weigh 600 lbs? And why do you believe they are incapable of practicing self control? Because they're Africans?Practicing abstinence doesn't ignore the problem, it addresses it directly and provides a solution. Using condoms allows the problem to continue. WTF It's because the population in which AIDS is most problematic doesn't have proper education to understand what AIDS is. They won't understand why they shouldn't be having sex. It's fucking natural to have sex. It's like telling people who are standing in the rain without an umbrella to not leave the house when it's raining, meanwhile holding 5 umbrellas in your hands. Are you correct? Yes, you're correct. But you could also fucking give them an umbrella to solve the problem at hand first, which is that they're getting soaked by the rain. You did not answer my question. It's also natural to eat. But does that mean there is no situation where you should probably exercise self control when eating? Actually, it's more like a doctor telling someone to stay inside their house if they have a contagious, life threatening manbearpig flu. And then the person wants to go outside anyway because they think that if they wear a face mask, they can lower the chance of exposure to other people. But the doctor tells them that even with the mask, they risk exposing people anyway, so they should probably just stay inside. And then the person goes outside without a mask, infects everyone. And then, he goes and blames the doctor. Yes, it's human nature to want to have sex. But it's not human nature to be infected with HIV. So if you have HIV, you need to be conscious of that and not engage in activities that might harm other people. That's a completely different thing, that's why I didn't answer. You will stop eating at some point because your body will naturally tell you so. Will your body stop you from having sex when you're in love with someone and it's getting to that point in your relationship? Your example is completely different from what I'm saying though. Your example includes the person already knowing the consequences of what could happen and ignoring them. READ MY POST. I bolded it for you. If you love someone, would you risk infecting them with a terrible disease? LOL my example is almost identical to the situation except instead of abstinence from intercourse, it's abstinence from leaving the house. Sounds like you're in a corner. So why not educate them on the consequence of what could happen so that they can make an educated decision not to expose their loved ones to AIDS, instead of encouraging them to do something that doesn't solve the problem? I don't think the church is hiding from people the consequences of having intercourse while infected with AIDS. Do you have a source on this? WTF Like, seriously, wtf. How can you still ignore what I'm saying. You're arguing against things I'm not saying and ignoring things I am saying. I'll say it again, as clearly as possible. AIDS is most problematic if people are not educated enough to understand it. The solution to that is to give them fucking condoms WHILE educating them and then possibly talk about abstinence. That solves the problem at hand and gives a solution to solve the problem over a long time. If you just say "we're gonna educate them and tell them that they shouldn't have sex" and meanwhile they've had sex X times already, spreading the disease while you could've just given them condoms AND educated them so they wouldn't have to rely on condoms later, then you're a fucking idiot. And that's exactly what I considered him. User was warned for this post
Because, as I've said, if a particular activity is causing the spread of HIV, then it would be good advice to halt that particular activity, not give people a false sense of security. You say that the problem is that people are having sex "X times already," then you merely have to multiply X by failure rate of condoms to figure out how many people you are exposing to HIV with your "solution." For example, with a 1% failure rate, an HIV infected person having sex once a day that listened to your "solution" would expose their partner to infection about 3 times a year. Multiply that by the amount of sexually active people, and you can figure out theoretically how many people are risking exposure to HIV due to your "solution." Absolutely irresponsible.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 12 2013 00:36 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:27 ZeromuS wrote:On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote:
Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope. Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings. It'll be an interesting election!
Just reading a bit about the Vatican II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council?
If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
|
good move, he sucked :O
User was warned for this post
|
On February 12 2013 00:45 Kogan wrote:
good move, he sucked :O
User was warned for this post
Please I want to know other than the general hate on religion and catholicism, why do you think did Pope Benedict suck?
|
On February 12 2013 00:43 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:36 koreasilver wrote:On February 12 2013 00:27 ZeromuS wrote:On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote:
Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope. Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings. It'll be an interesting election! Just reading a bit about the Vatican II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_CouncilSo what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Well I think the new pope could of course do so if he wants. Now the question is, why would the conclave elect somebody who is likely to plan another council?
|
On February 12 2013 00:54 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:45 Kogan wrote:
good move, he sucked :O
User was warned for this post Please I want to know other than the general hate on religion and catholicism, why do you think did Pope Benedict suck?
Clearly you haven't read much of this thread... Other than speaking out against condoms and sex in general, there's also this issue:
On February 11 2013 21:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 21:17 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 21:14 Golden Ghost wrote:On February 11 2013 21:09 Eufouria wrote:On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote:
My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church. Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage. Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting. If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience. Then there's the whole bit where he personally was behind the policy to cover up pedophile priests while moving them around so they could continue to prey on children who were threatened with excommunication if they tried to involve the police. I wonder if they'll finally be able to nail him for that once his diplomatic immunity expires.
|
I still wonder why, the only good reason i can come up with would be some incurable disease or something. Even if it is, this would be kinda unprecedented. Remember the state John Paul was in?
|
to be honest, he had far less appearance than the last pope and made much less significance statement etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
