pope debate

ah, how sweet PP :D , are you and liam going to kiss and make-up? Hope you are ok liam, yes don't take it personally, for what it is worth, i too am offended by some of the comments(although i get what some of the things PP is talking about)However he is the only Pope ever to come to Ireland(as far as i know), none of those other bloody italian popes came, even though ireland was a staunch catholic country. He played a significant role in helping Poland out of Communism,he was very active and met so many prominent leaders, i think he has done a lot of good, compared to previous popes.
xx julie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liam88

There are holes all over that argument and piled on top is some off the wall theory about Catholcis being in conclusion with the Nazis to massacre Jews.

---

I've only just spotted this and feel that I deserve the right of reply.

Firstly, I wasn't suggesting that the Church change its views on contraception (even though I personally view those as an outdated means of social control), but that the Church should view with compassion those "weak" enough to succumb to "sins of the flesh". As Eanna made quite plain in the example he used, plenty of married women have contracted HIV and AIDS without ever venturing outwith the Holy Sacraments to consummate relationships. They were just supremely unlucky that they married men who did. By its stance, the Church damned those poor women too.

Secondly - and I'm swallowing hard as I write this - Liam, has the sixtieth Holocaust Memorial Week passed you by? Do you not know the story of Pope Pius XII's refusal to condemn the slaughter of MILLIONS of Jews both at the time and after the event? For every St Maximillian Kolbe (and the thousands of other individual Catholic acts of martyrdom and sainthood) was the refusal - not failure, refusal - of an established and venerated religious institution to defend the weak and the vulnerable. Just like we've seen under the present Pope and the situation with AIDS in Africa.

So, please, don't ever try the "off the wall" line again without first appraising the whole range of facts and views available to you. My arguments are founded in accepted fact, not emotional hyperbole. Please do me the courtesy of remembering that in future. Just think how upset you'd be if I panned one of your views in the same tone. We're still friends, I hope. I just object to your rank dismissal of my views in such a fashion and as you can see I'm not afraid to tell you so.

:ball: PP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Éanna

absolute and utter bolloks. what about a woman who is a good catholic, who marries her husband and then catches aids from him because she won't wear a condom?

---

There's very few people who are going to insist their partners wear condoms after they are married. In all fairness, putting heavy blame on the pope for the AIDS epidemic is all too easy. I would imagine it has far far far more to do with traditions, culture, miseducation, lack of education and so on. Someone mentioned earlier about the possibility of blaming one's over zealous parents for their distaste for the Catholic Church. I think this is a good place to start. We all have our own minds and can make our own decisions from the age of reason onwards. This applies to Africans as well.

What really gets me going on this issue is the African men who are recklessly taking the life from their communities by taking multiple sexual partners when I cannot believe that they don't in some way know what the consequences of their exploits are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dancinpants

C'mere a minute - the pope isn't TELLING youse what and what not to do. I'm a Catholic and he's never told me a single thing!!!. Take what the church teaches as "suggestions" and you all mightn't feel so hard done by!!. Maybe its uptight parents (that beat youse up the road to mass every sunday mornin') that youse should be blaming and not the Catholic church. BTW theres whackier and more old fashioned religions out there!!!.

---

Without wanting to ahem Bare false witness I believe I'm substantially right in stating JPII (get well soon btw Karl ...you too were someones baby once like the rest of us) has threatened with excommunication members of his own clergy who don't spend enough time telling his "flock" how they are expected to behave on any number of matters. He has taken quite an interest in telling Catholics (and non-Catholics for that matter) what and what not to do.

He has canonised murderers and psycopaths. (though the encouragment of obscene behaviour is nothing new here. He's just continuing a grand old tradition that is so obsessed with the evil of sex that it canonises girls who embrace death rather than live through a sexual assault.) No fear they might canonise someone who wasn't so scared sh1tless of what the local clergy, family etc might say that she plucked up the courage to live through it, get the cops and face the cowardly rapist scum across a courtroom. Fat chance.

"Death Rather Than Sin" is the motto of one such misfortune. The pope canonised another one in 1998 who we are told (despite a complete absence of eye witnesses) was strangled by a soldier because she wouldn't "surrender her purity". On that great day for women everywhere JP had this to say ..."What a message of hope for those who are striving to run counter to the spirit of the world! To young people in particular, I hold up this young woman whom the Church is proclaiming blessed today so that they may learn form her clear faith, witnessed to in daily commitment, moral consistency without compromises and the courage of sacrificing even life if necessary, in order not to betray the values that give it meaning."

If I were the parent, relative or friend of a sexual assault victim -and was faced with that little tirade from JP-I'd want to rip his head off and sh1t down his neck.

Here we go again... :o
You know, the Old testament is actually full of this kind of thing. The Books of Judges, and Kings are full of times where God calls someone to a task, and that person then makes an utter hash of it, it all ends in tears and bodies piled high in the street, and so God has to try again.
The church is run by fallible, corruptible, weak people. Just as, I dunno, the railways are, or goverments are, or football teams are. The church is no more run by moral superheroes than Bord na Móna is.
As an Anglican, I have an equally difficult job in expressing my faith inside a church that has in the past endorsed slavery, propped up the monarchy, and amassed great wealth for itself. Every time I visit a Cathedral and see battle honours on the wall from regiments of the British Army that fell while looting Africa, India or China, I am reminded of Jesus' words in the temple: "You have made my house a den of thieves".
And that, in essence, is what it's all about. It should be about Jesus. It shouldn't be about churches or bishops or priests. They're just things that are supposed to help you hear God's voice. If they get in the way of doing that... Well, then frankly they're in the way.
I hope JPII makes a full recovery, and along with many many non-Catholics throughout the world pray for him, and for his replacement, whoever that might be, waiting in the wings.

Keep it on topic folks...theres a Catholic church bashing thread around the corner...

The Pope definitely should "retire" as can't see the purpose to his suffering. Unfortunately given the Vatican politics theres only going to a more conservative replacement. (can get odds at most bookies)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liam88

Our as in mine an ma fellow Catholics!

---

You mean Roman Catholics i presume. Many Catholic faiths do not see the pope as their leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

The Pope definitely should "retire" as can't see the purpose to his suffering. Unfortunately given the Vatican politics theres only going to a more conservative replacement. (can get odds at most bookies)

---

Sadly I think you're right. JPII being the first non-Italian for goodness knows how long, guarentees his replacement being Italian, pretty much. Thing is, he's stirred up so much trouble during his time that they'll also want a don't-rock-the-boat conservative. Remember, the Vatican thinks in centuries, not years. Trouble is that some Italian front runners of late have been either too liberal, too outspoken, or politically too awkward. For a real hardline conservative they'd have to look to Africa, and interesting through it'd be, I'm not sure they're ready for that leap just yet.
They'll go for as safe a bet as they can. Mind you, they said that when JPI died after such a short, yet promising time, and look who they ended up with...

Does all this mean ,he'll never keep goal again? :ball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corkharps

Does all this mean ,he'll never keep goal again? :ball:

---

Tragedy. You know he was assistamt groundsman at Fulham as a student, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Éanna

what about a woman who is a good catholic, who marries her husband and then catches aids from him because she won't wear a condom?

---

I'd be worried as a husband myself if my "wife" wanted to wear a condom... :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green goblin

Tragedy. You know he was assistamt groundsman at Fulham as a student, too?

---

It makes sense. After all, Craven Cottage is built on one corner of Bishops Park... :D

:D PP

Éanna comes up with one case where if a woman who married a man with aids catches it. Why do the Catholic Church now INSIST that people who get married in their Church do a pre-maritial course? The course involves such things as full disclosure to each other, talking about previous relationships, even the cermony in the Church involves certain oaths before God about the basis for the relationship. The Church does not people who do not know every relevant detail about each other to get married.

Now if this woman who got married to her husband without knowing that he had had previous sexual relationships how in the name of all that is good is that the Pope's fault? Its the Popes fault that she married someone who did not explain themselves?:rolleyes:

If he does tell her then she can make up her own mind whether she is happy to still have a sexual relationship and then (only THEN) does your point have any validity, even then the Church's teachings warn her strong against it.

Then if (sadly) she does catch AIDS who runs the hospital who treats her? Who funds the programs for medicine? Who put pressure on various Government (especially the US) to allow patents to be putaside for life saving AIDS durgs in the poor countries of the world. One particular AIDS drug which is patented by a US company would cost in the region of $1200 per month to treat a paitent. The Catholic Church (who work on the ground in some of the worst affected parts) were one of the main pressure groups involved in allowing the patent to be put aside. Now in the poor countries of the world the same AIDS drug can be bought for a tiny fraction of the price from India

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SÓC

Then if (sadly) she does catch AIDS who runs the hospital who treats her? Who funds the programs for medicine? Who put pressure on various Government (especially the US) to allow patents to be putaside for life saving AIDS durgs in the poor countries of the world. One particular AIDS drug which is patented by a US company would cost in the region of $1200 per month to treat a paitent. The Catholic Church (who work on the ground in some of the worst affected parts) were one of the main pressure groups involved in allowing the patent to be put aside. Now in the poor countries of the world the same AIDS drug can be bought for a tiny fraction of the price from India

---

Kudos to them on that but ...Who puts pressure on many various Goverments to restrict access to contraception? Who opposes non-faith based sex education for pubescents, teens AND adults at virtually every turn?
Who encourages poorly educated youths from Africa and Central/South America to "breed" for the church -when these kids can barely feed themselves?

...and just on the likelyhood of his successor being any better -he has stacked the house of cardinals with conservtives of his own mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SÓC

Éanna comes up with one case where if a woman who married a man with aids catches it. Why do the Catholic Church now INSIST that people who get married in their Church do a pre-maritial course? The course involves such things as full disclosure to each other, talking about previous relationships, even the cermony in the Church involves certain oaths before God about the basis for the relationship. The Church does not people who do not know every relevant detail about each other to get married.

---

Ive done a pre-marraige course and disclosure was not mentioned,hinted at etc.

Would those of you that defend the Church's view on sexual intercourse please tell me how the following, very current, news story can be justified? Someone? Anyone? :confused:

:mad: PP

---

http://www.sundayherald.com/47293

Church blocks sex education

By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor, Sunday Herald. 23 Jan 2005.

THE Catholic Church last night claimed victory in the ongoing row over sexual health education in schools after insisting that headteachers would be able to block family planning workers from entering classrooms.

A spokesman for the Church said he was “relaxed” about a strategy that would not force faith schools to do anything contrary to their ethos.

He said the long-delayed policy, which is to be unveiled this week by health minister Andy Kerr, will be rendered meaningless because it will not be legally binding.

“ Headteachers can’t be compelled to allow anyone into the schools. I’m not sure the strategy will be anything more than a national template,” he said.

The climbdown will be interpreted as a defeat for liberals who had argued for pupils having an equal right of access to sexual health services.

Last week, the Sunday Herald revealed that the Liberal Democrats refused to sign up to the strategy because Labour ministers were offering concessions to the Catholic Church.

This led to Executive ministers and special advisers making last-minute amendments the following day to prevent a rebellion from the LibDems, who eventually signed up to the strategy on Tuesday.

But the bizarre episode ended with the First Minister confirming on Thursday that rights of headteachers would override the needs of children in the sexual health strategy.

The policy is intended to address Scotland’s poor record on unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

According to Health Protection Scotland, Scotland is one of the STD hotspots of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoinh

Ive done a pre-marraige course and disclosure was not mentioned,hinted at etc.

---

And I got married last year and doing a pre-marriage course was not mentioned, hinted at etc. And the priest was a traditionalist at that (luckily he'd fooked off 2 weeks before the wedding).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy

Would those of you that defend the Church's view on sexual intercourse please tell me how the following, very current, news story can be justified? Someone? Anyone? :confused:

---

Justified? Well I dont agree with their motivies but then again would you allow someone into your house to preach to your children about something you did not believe in, something you were very much opposed to infact?

In public non-religious schools Governments should do what they want, teach what they deem fit.

In school runs by the Churches etc (a service which they provide for free btw) they should be allowed maintain control over what goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SÓC

Justified? Well I dont agree with their motivies but then again would you allow someone into your house to preach to your children about something you did not believe in, something you were very much opposed to infact?

In public non-religious schools Governments should do what they want, teach what they deem fit.

In school runs by the Churches etc (a service which they provide for free btw) they should be allowed maintain control over what goes on.

---

not so SOC. first they rarely educate for free. vast vast vast majority either have straight up fees or slight of hand style "voluntary contributions" (which are of course compulsory, obligatory, insisted upon and therefore not voluntary).
Second -schools of any denomination have to teach a national curriculum . They are not allowed to cherry pick the bits they like and dislike to any great degree (beyond the usual neglect and mutilation of arts subjects in favour of science/business subjects that goes on in virtually all schools).
There is a very strong case to be made that anyone operating an institution for instructing young people should be obliged to run comprehensive personal health courses -including modules on sex education and relationships -with said courses designed at department of education level in conjunction with depts of health and Environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerr's tribe

ah, how sweet PP :D , are you and liam going to kiss and make-up? Hope you are ok liam, yes don't take it personally, for what it is worth, i too am offended by some of the comments(although i get what some of the things PP is talking about)However he is the only Pope ever to come to Ireland(as far as i know), none of those other bloody italian popes came, even though ireland was a staunch catholic country. He played a significant role in helping Poland out of Communism,he was very active and met so many prominent leaders, i think he has done a lot of good, compared to previous popes.
xx julie

---

Fair play to ya Julie!
Aye re. PP we're still mates :D
Wouldn't be much of a friend if we fell out over moral reasons.......
No PP Holocaust week didn't pass me by-I preyed for the victims and watched the services; I just don't think the past should be brought up in religous arguments when those who have taken the places i.e. Pope John Paul II have done their best to make ameds i.e. sending an envoy to the holocaust services, stating publicly that the Jews wer enot to be blames for Christs execution (the first Pope to do so).
I apologise to for any offence caused-I never meant it.