Well... condom use is wrong because in the churches eyes you shouldn't be having sex if you are not trying to conceive. So assuming that people with AIDS would not be trying to have a baby, the church doesn't think they should have sex at all.
[/quote]
And even there the church is hypocritical, because it teaches "Natural Family Planning", and specifically instructs how to use it to avoid conception as well as achieve it.
Vanishing Point
Apr 19 2005, 09:49 PM
I agree with most of what eveyone has said above but seriously did anyone expect anything better. John Paul II appointed all but three of the cardinals. The cardinals elect the new Pope. The chances of anybody who had even a vaguely liberal streak being nominated were non-existent.
Now we have the pleasure of having the head of the Inquisition as Pope.
Ambrose's Auntie
Apr 20 2005, 12:31 AM
It's not that I necessarily expected a raving liberal as pope, but I did hope it wouldn't be one of the most conservative cardinals in the conclave. Meh.
mjforty
Apr 20 2005, 03:10 PM
QUOTE At a grassroots level, there are so many devoted and dedicated people doing wonderful things that the leadership condemns as supporting instrinsic moral evil. I definitely agree with this, AA. I work with a woman who is a nun and listening to her talk is quite inspirational. If I remove all the "God" parts, it's a wonderful example of how I should try to live my life. VP, I didn't expect the new Pope to be more liberal. However, I had hoped that the new Pope would at least symbolize that the Church was moving forward instead of looking backwards. I mean, it's another white European. Woo-hoo. Way to step out of the box. It seems to me that these guys are clinging to what used to be rather than what is to be and by choosing this man, they are going to continue losing the faithful in Latin America and Africa. I also think the Church is hypocritical in its "sex is about procreation" stance because they don't lecture married couples to stop having sex once the woman becomes pregnant nor do they refuse to marry couples where one is infertile. And, as has been stated, they do tell their members it's okay to use the rhythm method. Although, that may just be some huge con since a lot of my friends happened to be rhythm method babies. Also, I think it's bullshit that they don't take a look at the world around them when issuing these ultimatums. During WWII, Orthodox rabbis bent the rule about using contraception because becoming pregnant mean instant death. I think what's happening in sub-Sahara Africa is similar to that situation. While having sex is not certain death, the spread of AIDs in Africa is a pandemic and preventive measures must be taken if that continent is to be saved. To not recognize that and insisting on continue to follow a doctrine that is contributing to these deaths is so myopic. Once again, the Church is more interested in its "brand" than it is in attending to the faithful.
Claudia
Apr 20 2005, 03:29 PM
| QUOTE (mjforty @ Today at 4:10 pm) | I also think the Church is hypocritical in its "sex is about procreation" stance because they don't lecture married couples to stop having sex once the woman becomes pregnant nor do they refuse to marry couples where one is infertile. And, as has been stated, they do tell their members it's okay to use the rhythm method. [/quote]
"Sex is about procreation" isn't strictly speaking the position. The position is that sex can be an affirming part of a marriage, but that one must always leave room for God to decide to give you a baby. Though why he can't miracle his way around condoms as much as he did around Sarah or Rachel or Elizabeth's infertility, I'm not sure.
ejg25
Apr 20 2005, 03:51 PM
Hey, as I understand it, he can decide to give you a baby when you're not even having sex.
Nalian
Apr 20 2005, 06:08 PM
Wow. I guess the Pope thing is kind of a big deal. I was wondering why there was even news coverage about it, it seems bizarre in this day and age for it to matter to anyone who isn't catholic.
Vanishing Point
Apr 20 2005, 06:42 PM
I guess the fact that there are over 1 billion Catholic's in the world makes it important. That makes the Pope one of the more powerful and influencial people in the world. I'm not American yet I care and it is important to me who becomes the President of the USA.
Meowcat
Apr 20 2005, 06:43 PM
QUOTE During WWII, Orthodox rabbis bent the rule about using contraception because becoming pregnant mean instant death. MJ as I understand it from my mother the Jewish religion allows for the breaking of pretty much every rule to preserve life. I think its also that Pope John Paul was very interested in reaching out to the world - he traveled widely, he met with many political and religious leaders (from every faith) and he was a great user of mass media which gave him a very wide influence. Choosing a European pope is suposed to be a way of stemming the decline in the faithful in Europe and his conservatism is suposed to appeal to the more coservative African Church. So in theory Pope Benidict is ment to have a wide appeal.
ejg25
Apr 20 2005, 07:03 PM
Was there really any chance of a nonwhite pope? Have there been any? And pre-John Paul II, weren't there only Italian popes for the last X number of years?
Claudia
Apr 20 2005, 08:47 PM
Given that the future of the church appears to be in Africa and Asia, and that there was speculation about a particular African cardinal... I don't know how likely it was, but commentators certainly hashed the possibility out over and over. http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13707701http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4454759.stmAnd yes, the popes were all Italian for about 500 years before John Paul II, and there were three North African popes, the last dying in 496 A.D.
SNeaker
Apr 20 2005, 10:05 PM
QUOTE MJ as I understand it from my mother the Jewish religion allows for the breaking of pretty much every rule to preserve life. Yep. Except three; murder, sexual crimes, and idolatry.
Ambrose's Auntie
Apr 21 2005, 01:53 AM
| QUOTE (Claudia @ Today at 11:47 am) | Given that the future of the church appears to be in Africa and Asia, and that there was speculation about a particular African cardinal... I don't know how likely it was, but commentators certainly hashed the possibility out over and over.
[/quote]
I think that speculation was more in hope than expectation.
I was hoping that someone like John XXIII might emerge - someone who was supposed to just blend into the wallpaper, but instead took the church lurching into the general vicinity of at least the 19th century with Vatican II (which really sounds like the name of an America's Cup yacht, now that I come to think of it). Unfortunately, I don't think there's a hope in high heaven of Benedict XVI doing anything like that.
ejg25
Apr 21 2005, 02:28 AM
QUOTE And yes, the popes were all Italian for about 500 years before John Paul II Five hundred years? I didn't realize it was that long. Given the history, picking a Polish and a German pope is diversity and radical modernism. Given that we haven't yet come close to getting somebody ethnic into the presidency of these modern and most eminently diverse United States, it doesn't make a lot of sense to expect the ancient Catholic Church to cut a faster pace.
Pandrea
Apr 21 2005, 08:36 AM
QUOTE Ratzinger wrote ... Any Catholic who voted for [John Kerry] ... would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion." (from this worrying article). Wow. I'm floored. And I'm led to wonder, did anyone who voted for Hitler in 1933, perhaps not fully understanding things, also get denied Communion afterwards? QUOTE I also think the Church is hypocritical in its "sex is about procreation" stance because they don't lecture married couples to stop having sex once the woman becomes pregnant nor do they refuse to marry couples where one is infertile. And, as has been stated, they do tell their members it's okay to use the rhythm method. See, this is what baffles me also. I can see it as consistent if you will always teach that sex is ONLY for procreation or attempts at it. But to allow exceptions makes no sense of banning condoms. Especially when fundamentally, they are not really any different from having sex but withdrawing in time, whereas I can at least see that other methods (morning after pill etc) somehow block a pregnancy that may have technically started. I think my problem is I'm always looking for logic, I need to understand that that is not really what it's about and move on. Given this new Pope and Bush's election, my one consolation in the tide of increasing success of the Right is that the Tories are still doing woefully in Britain, even with their special Australian whizzkid man. Sure, that's mostly because Tony Blair has stolen all their policies, but I've got to take comfort where I can find it.
Ambrose's Auntie
Apr 21 2005, 05:49 PM
QUOTE (Pandrea @ Yesterday at 11:36 pm) See, this is what baffles me also. I can see it as consistent if you will always teach that sex is ONLY for procreation or attempts at it. But to allow exceptions makes no sense of banning condoms. Especially when fundamentally, they are not really any different from having sex but withdrawing in time, whereas I can at least see that other methods (morning after pill etc) somehow block a pregnancy that may have technically started. I think my problem is I'm always looking for logic, I need to understand that that is not really what it's about and move on. The thing that gets me about this as well is that when I was at my Catholic all-girls high school, being lectured in sex education by nuns (which probably explains a great deal about me, but that's for an entirely different thread), we were constantly told that contraception was evil because it was an "agent of abortion", specifically that the pill didn't prevent conception but that it procured an abortion. Things like condoms never rated a mention, and I suspect we weren't supposed to know they existed or what they were for (hey, it was the 70s).
Boliver
Apr 21 2005, 06:52 PM
So, basically, the nuns, the people responsible for your basic education, lied to you? Nice.
ejg25
Apr 21 2005, 07:04 PM
I'm not surprised. One year we had an ex-nun as a teacher at our secular preschool, and she told us all that when we died we'd go to Candyland. My parents were thrilled about that one.
And it's blatantly untrue, because everyone knows that heaven looks like the Getty Museum.
Claudia
Apr 21 2005, 07:23 PM
| QUOTE (Boliver @ Today at 7:52 pm) | So, basically, the nuns, the people responsible for your basic education, lied to you? Nice. [/quote]
It's a matter of interpretation. Prevents implantation, causes abortion--if you think ensoulment happens at the moment egg meets sperm, then they're the same. And that is what the pill sometimes does. (It's impossible to know how often it does that as opposed to preventing ovulation or preventing fertilization.)
Pandrea
Apr 21 2005, 07:45 PM
Hey, at least they HAD sex education. We had a talk once about menstruation (which was given by a representative from a tampon company, so I don't recall them even mentioning towels) and that was it. Oh, they did show The Silent Scream once (film which shows an abortion) but it was in the lunch hour or something and not compulsory to attend.
Ambrose's Auntie
Apr 21 2005, 10:30 PM
Claudia, that was the thinking. And Pandrea, we were forced to watch a film on abortion which was incredibly graphic, and which I clearly remember. I look back and wonder why they didn't get into incredibly hot water for not seeking our parents' approval. That film scarred me for life.
ejg25
Apr 21 2005, 11:50 PM
I'm wondering if maybe all this pope and Catholicism stuff would merit being moved to a new topic... like a religion one.
Pandrea
Apr 22 2005, 05:36 AM
That would make sense.
(And if the Ukrainian flower seller could go too ... ?)
jenelope
Apr 22 2005, 08:13 AM
Eh. I like the name he selected because it makes me think of delicious, fattening breakfast dishes, but I've seen nothing to make me come back to the church. In fact, this election made me face facts that I can't be Catholic anymore. I stopped going to church when Michigan Catholic dioceses spent a half million dollars pushing our anti-gay marriage proposal. I liken it to when you break up with someone you really love, but can't possibly live with and then realize several months later that you're finally really over them. It's sad, but kind of a relief at the same time.
It was also made a lot easier by the knowledge that John Paul II declared that people who didn't believe in all of the Catholic dogma weren't really Catholic. I guess we're finally on the same page.
Nalian
Apr 22 2005, 09:31 AM
QUOTE (Vanishing Point @ Apr 20 2005, 07:42 PM) I guess the fact that there are over 1 billion Catholic's in the world makes it important. That makes the Pope one of the more powerful and influencial people in the world. I'm not American yet I care and it is important to me who becomes the President of the USA. It doesn't stem from being non-Catholic. It stems from the fact that I don't know a single Catholic who cares what the Pope says. Seriously. Even the most devout Catholics I know think that the Pope says a lot of garbage and is very disappointed with the church. I don't think he's very influential at all here, and being that I am here and not anywhere else, I figured its similar elsewhere. Thast why its weird to me that its not. Also, being a protestant, we don't have an equivelant of a Pope. We figure man is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to fallible to have one to hold in that high of an esteem - at least my church does. So its baffling to me - especially given that a bunch of out of touch guys vote him in, and 'the people' have no say.
ejg25
Apr 22 2005, 12:16 PM
Thanks for the quick fix, Nalian and/or Veda (hi Veda! we miss you).
Jenelope, I wonder if there is maybe a liberal or gay-friendly Catholic congregation you could join. Per you and John Paul II, it wouldn't be the same as being full-on Catholic, but maybe it'd be just right for you.
jenelope
Apr 22 2005, 04:20 PM
I don't think that would help. It's not my particular church, it's the governing body. I can't be part of an organization whose ideals are so different from my own. Right now I'm looking into different churches more than different congregations.
ejg25
Apr 22 2005, 04:25 PM
I hear Episcopalians are like generic brand Catholics.
Veda
Apr 22 2005, 04:57 PM
And still pretty homophobic as a whole. Pretty sure it is the Episocpalians who have an openly gay priest in a NH church that they've been trying to throw out for a year or so.
Pandrea
Apr 22 2005, 05:16 PM
It must vary, then, because here they've been quite cool.
Claudia
Apr 22 2005, 06:12 PM
Veda, it is and it isn't. The US Episcopalians received pressure from Anglicans elsewhere in the world, *and* there's also been internal debate. I wouldn't say New England episcopalians are particularly homophobic overall, but it depends on exactly who you're talking to. The US and Canadian Episcopal churches were asked to withdraw from a year from parts of the worldwide Anglican community after fusses over an ordination and blessings of same-sex unions. So yes, there's controversy, but hey, there's ordinations happening! It's progress, but not quiet progress. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4356989.stmSo trust the Scottish church to continue to stir things up. :) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotlan...and/4376251.stm
jenelope
Apr 25 2005, 08:30 AM
This murkiness is precisely why I haven't headed straight for the nearest Episcopal church. Yes, it would be comfortingly familiar, but some things still don't sit right with me.
According to that internet quiz that's been going around for years, I would make a damned good Quaker. But I don't know how I would adapt from 34 years of stand up/sit down/kneel/three readings/lots of singing/BodyofChristAmen to a bunch of people sitting quietly in a room and listening for God.
Claudia
Apr 25 2005, 09:55 AM
I went to Quaker meeting a couple times when I was in my college questing mode. I thought it was pretty cool but I still lacked the whole basic belief in God thing, so didn't return.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here. |
|
|
|