Pope gives his view on lots of stuff he's sick of people talking about

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/pope-francis-abortion-gay-marriage-contraception-1091405-Sep2013/#comment-1608204

Those people that don't go to mass:

Instead of being just a church that welcomes and receives by keeping the doors open, let us try also to be a church that finds new roads, that is able to step outside itself and go to those who do not attend Mass, to those who have quit or are indifferent. The ones who quit sometimes do it for reasons that, if properly understood and assessed, can lead to a return. But that takes audacity and courage.

Those gay people

We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: “Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?” We must always consider the person.

Abortion and those women who can't keep a marriage together

I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?

wimin in the church

The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role. The woman is essential for the church. Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops. I say this because we must not confuse the function with the dignity. We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church. We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman. Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the church. The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions. The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church.

Sarky

He's just looking for new ways to dress up the church's ingrained bigotry and prejudice. It's not going to stop being bigoted and prejudiced any time soon.

joseph brand

The church has decided to change tact, since the fire and brimstone approach isn't working/ won't work.

They had 2 choices:

a) Carry on as usual with the most evil looking pope (linked to nazi youth) and watch their numbers dwindle. (They're deluded, not stupid)
OR
b) Get in a new pope, with a softly softly approach, causing those sitting on the fence to say:

Christian no. 1: "Aww, isn't he lovely?"
Christian no. 2: "The church is really changing."
Christian no. 3: "Will they start to recognise women and the LGBT community as actual humans with the same rights as straight, white men?"

Bollix they will.

BigotryVille. Population: Christianity.

DazMarz

Wolf in sheep's clothing springs to mind here...

mewso

Listening to George Hook talk about being more excited about this than anything in years. Woohoo an A La Carte friendly Pope. Now Catholics can pick and chose with his blessing.

All the good work of the previous Pope seems destined to be undone.

Pherekydes

mewso wrote: »

All the good work of the previous Pope seems destined to be undone.

What good work?

mewso

Pherekydes wrote: »

What good work?

What wasn't good about a conservative, homophobic, child abuse cover-upper driving people away from the church?

Galvasean

Francis is a fantastic Pope in that he creates the illusion of progress without doing anything progressive.

Doctor Strange

It's funny, I'm seeing so many people swoon over this guy, and all I've seen from him is a whole lot of gum flapping, and no action. If he wants to be the revolutionary he dresses himself up as, he should call Vatican Council and moot his ideas.

Gordon

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/pope-francis-abortion-gay-marriage-contraception-1091405-Sep2013/#comment-1608204

Those people that don't go to mass:

Those gay people

Abortion and those women who can't keep a marriage together

wimin in the church

My tl;dr paraphrased version.

1) Get on your soapboxes, we need more people preaching and shoving our religion down their throats.

2a) I'm not homophobic, I have an acquaintance who is gay. And when he said he wanted to believe in my god, I said, well.. ok.. I guess, as long as I don't have to interfere with him in any way.

2b) Someone asked me once: 'are you a homophobe?' and I said 'let me answer that with a question: this is not the question you are looking for'.

3) It takes one to tango, and the woman is fully to blame, but I'd like to put a question out there, hear me out.. Should we forgive women?

4) I think the place of the woman should be thought of more, and I think that women should know their place.

robindch

In all fairness to Magic-Hat Fanny:

http://www.thejournal.ie/pope-francis-abortion-gay-marriage-contraception-1091405-Sep2013

Magic-Hat Fanny wrote:

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. [...] The teaching of the church [...] is clear [...] but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

Whatever will Mr McKevitt fill the pages of Alive! with?

Tomk1

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
The CC inc. has shown it's adaptabillity in the past in taking other cultural beliefs and "Borging it" ie assimulating it as their own.
They can either adapt or head towards extinction. I think we know which way they will go.

Gordon

Magic-Hat Fanny wrote:

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. [...] The teaching of the church [...] is clear [...] but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

'Let all of our hysterical intolerances be heard, not just some of them.'

Lucy8080

Do evolutionists believe that everything evolves, or just everything but religion?

If religion is excluded...well..now!

Keep reaching for the caveman club response ..

Or , try looking for the growth here.

No organisation owns truth, kicking those who are moving out of ignorance is the act of the ignorant.

Gordon

Lucy8080 wrote: »

No organisation owns truth, kicking those who are moving out of ignorance is the act of the ignorant.

Are you saying that the Catholic church has been ignorant all this time, and only now is trying to move away from its ignorance? What is it ignorant of?

hfallada

Its great even if he does nothing, that he acknowledges people in the church have a preoccupation on trivial matters that dont concern them like gay marriage as its not a threat to the CC. But failing to acknowledge the child abuse that was common in CC across the world is damaging to the CC reputation. Also the church should focus on spreading its message in Africa and Asia.

Although I dont agree with a lot of the churches teachings. Its better than some of the BS christian churches founded in the US which are becoming popular in Africa, which spread nothing but hate and lies. Especially regarding condoms and AIDS

ShooterSF

Maybe this is all the rum I'm using as a cold suppressant but I can only see 3 reasons why a religion needs to evolve and none of them paint a pretty picture:

1) Your omniscient omnipresent deity has unchanging rules on what is right and what is wrong but his/her communication skills leave a hell of a lot to be desired and he/she teaches their rules in a cryptic fashion. Requiring constant examination (usually intensified by the rest of society moving away from your current understanding).

2) Your omniscient omnipresent deity changes his/her mind on what is right or wrong and is just usually behind the curve on what humanity feels is right or wrong

3) Your religion's real purpose is to gain followers and control them for your benefit so adapting your rules or the severity of their enforcement is beneficial with changing opinions in society.

we'llallhavetea

yeah well, I don't think anyone is going to forget the whole shooting tony episode he had.

Lucy8080

Gordon wrote: »

Are you saying that the Catholic church has been ignorant all this time, and only now is trying to move away from its ignorance? What is it ignorant of?

It is possibly more aware of ( and willing to acknowledge, as an organised identity) its past ignorance in comparison to Atheism.

I'm amazed that Atheism in its "organised forms" refuses to acknowledge other forms of destructive Atheism in the history books.

It seems to me that the "Democratic Umbrella" saved both Theist identities and Atheist identities from their worst excesses!

Atheism has had its Political theocracy in communist societies.We are just primed to see the evils of one side of the theocratic coin!Theistic theocracy is bad....Atheistic theocracy...well lets just bury our heads on that one!

Two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned.

It's still good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si_21P1wxqc

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

It is possibly more aware of ( and willing to acknowledge, as an organised identity) its past ignorance in comparison to Atheism.

I'm amazed that Atheism in its "organised forms" refuses to acknowledge other forms of destructive Atheism in the history books.

It seems to me that the "Democratic Umbrella" saved both Theist identities and Atheist identities from their worst excesses!

Atheism has had its Political theocracy in communist societies.We are just primed to see the evils of one side of the theocratic coin!Theistic theocracy is bad....Atheistic theocracy...well lets just bury our heads on that one!

Two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned.

smacl

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Atheism has had its Political theocracy in communist societies.We are just primed to see the evils of one side of the theocratic coin!Theistic theocracy is bad....Atheistic theocracy...well lets just bury our heads on that one!

Say what now? Atheistic theocracy? A group of people that deny the existence of any God running a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

You do realise that relating theistic theocracy to atheistic theocracy is comparing orange oranges to blue oranges?

Gordon

Lucy8080 wrote: »

It is possibly more aware of ( and willing to acknowledge, as an organised identity) its past ignorance in comparison to Atheism.

What is the Catholic church ignorant of, though? You seem to suggest that ignorance is a catch all term, like stupidity, so it's like you're saying that the Catholic church is, and has been stupid. So, you think that the Catholic church has no knowledge of law pertaining to sex with children, doesn't understand the bible, knows nothing of the evils of corruption, doesn't know what to spend billions of euros on, is completely unaware of whether or not there is a god? Is that what you're saying? Or is there something specific that the Catholic church is currently ignorant of?

smacl

I suggest that capitalising the word Atheism suggests a basic lack of understanding of the words such as theism, atheism, polytheism, and monotheism, and how little value there is in trying to compare them to institutions such as the Catholic church. Lack of a belief in one or more gods does not make atheists a homogenous group, in terms of philosophical or political leanings.

Cabaal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I'm amazed that Atheism in its "organised forms" refuses to acknowledge other forms of destructive Atheism in the history books.

err, I think you are very much confused,

The catholic church is like a club, it has rules, structure and leadership and has done for a good few hundred years, I think we can agree on that yeah?

Being a atheist means you merely don't believe in god, there is no organization you have to join or rules you have to follow to be a atheist (other then I guess non-belief). You can for example not believe in a god but still think abortion is wrong or something like that.

So being a atheist is not in anyway comparable to a religion, frankly its insulting to try and make such a comparison.

So in short trying to compare a corrupt catholic church's history to a single atheist or any other single atheist throughout history is frankly idiotic.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

So in short trying to compare a corrupt catholic church's history to a single atheist or any other single atheist throughout history is frankly idiotic.

"To somebody with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"

- Abraham Maslow, et al.

gaynorvader

Claiming all atheists act the same is the same as claiming all people who dye their hair act the same. Sure you can say all hair-dyers are vain and all atheists don't believe in a god, but you can't say that because Genghis Khan dyed his hair all hair-dyers are homicidal warmongers any more than you can say because Stalin was an atheist all atheists are genocidal dictators.

Sarky

robindch wrote: »

"To somebody with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"

- Abraham Maslow, et al.

Just imagine all the fuss and misunderstanding that could have been avoided if that phrase had been around 2000 years ago.

A thread about the Pope in an atheist forum.

Yeah, that's a great idea. Invite the theists in to defend him an' roast 'em theist heathens!

Kidding of course re: the above, but I'll be honest as one of the unenlightened I'm breathing a sigh of relief, a liberal pope I can get behind.

Kinda wonder what he's got to do with atheism though?

Skrynesaver

robindch wrote: »

"To somebody with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"

- Abraham Maslow, et al.

I prefer this version:

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a thumb

Sarky

Deleted User wrote: »

Kidding of course re: the above, but I'll be honest as one of the unenlightened I'm breathing a sigh of relief, a liberal pope I can get behind.

What exactly has he done that's liberal?

smacl

gaynorvader wrote: »

you can't say that because Genghis Khan dyed his hair all hair-dyers are homicidal warmongers

Unless of course they're slaughtering the great unwashed in the name of L'Oriel (Because they're worth it). Or in the name of the Lord our Saviour, because the victims are clearly infidels.

Frank Lee Midere

Sarky wrote: »

What exactly has he done that's liberal?

He's basically moving the church away from homophobia ( although that's been over emphasised) to more social left wing positions. Which you would expect from an (economically) leftist South American pope.

gaynorvader

smacl wrote: »

Unless of course they're slaughtering the great unwashed in the name of L'Oriel (Because they're worth it). Or in the name of the Lord our Saviour, because the victims are clearly infidels.

Even then, it would be the organisation of forced hair-dyers worshipping L'Oriel as opposed to anyone dyeing their hair.

Frank Lee Midere

smacl wrote: »

Unless of course they're slaughtering the great unwashed in the name of L'Oriel (Because they're worth it). Or in the name of the Lord our Saviour, because the victims are clearly infidels.

Or the Kulaks who are clearly bourgeoisie.

Sarky

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

He's basically moving the church away from homophobia ( although that's been over emphasised) to more social left wing positions. Which you would expect from an (economically) leftist South American pope.

He's always said the Church's teaching is clear, no amount of wishy-washy platitudes will dress that up unless he actually makes changes in the church.

He's pretty much done, and will do, squat.

smacl

gaynorvader wrote: »

Even then, it would be the organisation of forced hair-dyers worshipping L'Oriel as opposed to anyone dyeing their hair.

Indeed. It's the promise of eternal youth and good looks, clearly bogus of course, that converts the gullible masses into fanatical hairdryer toting fashionistas.

ShooterSF

Sarky wrote: »

What exactly has he done that's liberal?

He's bennefitting from what I like to call the George W Bush phenemonenon, where the previous leader of your organisation is so hated and vilified, just not being that person makes you look like you've cured cancer.

Sarky

Ah, like how anyone could get into the Seanad by running on nothing but a "I'm not Ronan Mullen" platform.

I Heart Internet

So much misunderstanding on this thread.

People seem hard wired to only consider Popes in terms of tired, simplistic one word tags.

Popes are either:

liberal
conservative
hardline
progressive
traditional

any more I've missed out on?

Pope Francis is simply more successful that his predecessors (and especially his immediate predecessor) in communicating with a media that wants snappy, one sentence positions on things.

He has said nothing that isn't in the traditional teachings and modern cathecism of the Catholic Church. Love your neighbour, be kind to people - everyone, don't hate people who are different to you, God loves you, we're all going to heaven with Jesus if we want to!

Trouble is, those who didn't want to hear this message in the past (when Benedict XVI couldn't communicate it in anything but 60 page, big-worded documents) possibly won't hear it now because they think Francis is just a flash-in-the-pan poster boy.

I think Francis is a great successor to Benedict. He's different in many ways but they same give, essentially, the same message. Francis just gives it in a much fresher, breezier, digestable way.

If you must have a one word summary of Francis, try Christian.

Pherekydes

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So much misunderstanding on this thread.

I don't think there's any misunderstanding.

He waffles on with kinder words, but...

...actions speak louder than words.

Meanwhile, nothing changes.

I Heart Internet

Pherekydes wrote: »

He waffles on with kinder words, but...

...actions speak louder than words.

What have popes ever done except talk (waffle)? Travel, talk, write, talk...

The people who he rings up to talk about their problems seem to think he's an alright kinda fella.

Do you not think he's encouraging those who look to him to be kinder, more loving people? That's good isn't it?

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What have popes ever done except talk (waffle)? Travel, talk, write, talk...

The people who he rings up to talk about their problems seem to think he's an alright kinda fella.

Do you not think he's encouraging those who look to him to be kinder, more loving people? That's good isn't it?

It doesn't matter what he says unless he actually changes the church's policy's, he's not doing that.

Until he does:
- the church will still be against gay people, this gives excuses for anti gay laws to be passed.
- The church will remain gay marriage
- Hundreds of thousands of people will continue to die in places like Afgrica due to the church's backwards via's on condom use.
- Catholic Religious nutbags will continue to be against abortion even if the mothers life is at risk or the fetus has 0% chance of living outside of the mother, they will continue to feel justified because of the churchs views.
- Abuse victims will continue to be ignored and not given compensation, priests that have abused will continue to keep their titles just because they've said sorry and men like Sean Brady will continue to hold their positions even though they were part of the abuse problem.

Sarky

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What have popes ever done except talk (waffle)? Travel, talk, write, talk...

Early popes were really quite active in deciding what the public was supposed to believe. Pope Liberius got the job at a time when most Christians believed the 'wrong' stuff about Jesus, and he had to go and sort that out with a few Councils, some interference with one Emperor Constantine, a few flip-flops and accusations of heresy and the like, and the result was a Catholic Church that was waaay more "burn first, establish whether heresy or not later" in its approach to everything. But hey, at least everyone was now believing the right things. It had to be the truth, after all; it won.

Popes used to do a whole lot more than waffle. Big sweeping policy changes, the occasional call for a crusade, digging up long dead ex-popes and declaring them and all their decisions the vilest heresy...



* With thanks to Bannasidhe for bringing said pope to my attention

I Heart Internet

Sarky wrote: »

Early popes....

I know, I was going to say "modern popes" but didn't.

I'm not saying that modern popes can't changes policies - sometimes with just the wave of a pen. In fact, that's my point....it's not all just "waffle".

Leo the Great was a oldie but goodie: went out to meet Atilla the Hun at the gates of Rome and somehow convinced him to turn around and go home.

One could argue that Pope JPII's stand-off with communism was of a similar, if less dramatic vein.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

It doesn't matter what he says unless he actually changes the church's policy's, he's not doing that.

Until he does:
- the church will still be against gay people, this gives excuses for anti gay laws to be passed.

The church isn't "against gay people", it feels that gay sex is a sin, akin to sex outside marriage. A subtle difference, but an important one. The church is very much against hatred towards any person.

Cabaal wrote: »

- The church will remain gay marriage.

I presume you mean "against". Lots of people are against gay marriage. It is a very distinct novelty and an important redefinition of the western notion of marriage.

Cabaal wrote: »

- Hundreds of thousands of people will continue to die in places like Afgrica due to the church's backwards via's on condom use.

That's a reasonable criticism worthy of discussion but condoms aren't the only reason people die of Aids in Africa. The

Cabaal wrote: »

- Catholic Religious nutbags will continue to be against abortion even if the mothers life is at risk or the fetus has 0% chance of living outside of the mother, they will continue to feel justified because of the churchs views..

The catholic church (and other pro-life people) are very clear that terminating a pregnancy where there is a real risk to the life of the mother is justifiable. Abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn human and is very grave. Furthermore, where it's tolerated, it's often abused - such as sex-selected abortion in India and the UK. If the RCC is against killing unborn humans becase they are girls, I'm with them thanks.

Cabaal wrote: »

- Abuse victims will continue to be ignored and not given compensation, priests that have abused will continue to keep their titles just because they've said sorry and men like Sean Brady will continue to hold their positions even though they were part of the abuse problem.

Your first three points are debateable. Sean Brady should have done the easy thing and resigned.


I think what you're saying is: "When the Pope thinks like me on these issues, he'll be right."

Turtwig

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The church isn't "against gay people", it feels that gay sex is a sin, akin to sex outside marriage. A subtle difference, but an important one.

Sex before marriage : legal.
Gay marriage : illegal.
A not so subtle difference but a really important one!

I Heart Internet

Jernal wrote: »

Sex before marriage : legal.
Gay marriage : illegal.
A not so subtle difference but a really important one!

Sex is an action.

Marriage is a legal institution.

If you want to change the legal definition of a marriage, go right ahead - it'll surely go before the people soon enough.

Turtwig

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Sex is an action.

Marriage is a legal institution.

If you want to change the legal definition of a marriage, go right ahead - it'll surely go before the people soon enough.

You totally skirted the point. Striking someone with a baseball is also an action, but it's mostly illegal! Why is it that the church want's gay marriage illegal but seems satisfied that sex outside of wedlock is legal? Remember that marriage isn't exclusively a Catholic thing either.

gaynorvader

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The church isn't "against gay people", it feels that gay sex is a sin, akin to sex outside marriage. A subtle difference, but an important one. The church is very much against hatred towards any person.

That's a cowardly way of being against homosexuals. Telling them they can have sex, so long as they get married first, but they are not allowed to get married so no sex for them.

I Heart Internet wrote:

I presume you mean "against". Lots of people are against gay marriage. It is a very distinct novelty and an important redefinition of the western notion of marriage.

Wow. That's insulting, "novelty"? I can only hope it was just a poor choice of words on your part. Western marriage has changed many times over the centuries, where once it was used to cement alliances between families or to gain a dowry, it's now taken on a strange role of child raising (often done primarily by a nanny or nurse or granny in the past).

Also "lots of people are doing it" is not an argument for it being right.

I Heart Internet wrote:

That's a reasonable criticism worthy of discussion but condoms aren't the only reason people die of Aids in Africa.

Very true, but the other reasons don't detract from the issues caused by lack of condoms. You can't excuse murderers because they aren't the only reason people die. Or to take a less extreme example, you can't excuse thieves because they aren't the only reason stuff goes missing.

I Heart Internet wrote:

{...} If the RCC is against killing unborn humans becase they are girls, I'm with them thanks.

{...}

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean here?

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The church isn't "against gay people", it feels that gay sex is a sin, akin to sex outside marriage. A subtle difference, but an important one. The church is very much against hatred towards any person.

Unless the church decides to re-edit the book it bases its entire belief structure then I'm afraid you are talking nonsense.

The church and its whole structure are against gays and view them with disgust and as vile people Its not just about sin.

The church bases its view that being gay is a "sin" on stuff like

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

"Every abomination ... the Lord ... hateth."
Including homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22) 12:31

Now, lets look at the meaning of the word.

a·bom·i·na·tion (-bm-nshn)
n.
1. Abhorrence; disgust.
2. A cause of abhorrence or disgust.

abomination [əˌbɒmɪˈneɪʃən]
n
1. a person or thing that is disgusting
2. an action that is vicious, vile, etc.
3. intense loathing

a•bom•i•na•tion (əˌbɒm əˈneɪ ʃən)

n.
1. something greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation.
3. a vile or shameful action, condition, or habit.
[1350–1400; Middle English < Late Latin]

Yep, the church very much look down on gays and view them with disgust