Pope's speech causes outrage

[Popeye]

I personally dislike this Pope very much but I do respect that he is trying to get the RCC back to its roots.

I am not sure it is fair for anyone to say he liked being in hitlers youth or disliked it. actually since he was forced it safer to say he did not like it. You have a right to think he got jollys out of it I supose but it doesnt seem realistic to me, and I dont even like the man.

I don't know whether he enjoyed being a member or not, he was in the German army too.

I'm just saying that 14 is an extremely impressionable age, and just possibly the seeds for Benedict's uncompromising attitude were sown in the early years of his membership in the Hitler Youth.

 

[Pandora]

I don't know whether he enjoyed being a member or not, he was in the German army too.

I'm just saying that 14 is an extremely impressionable age, and just possibly the seeds for Benedict's uncompromising attitude were sown in the early years of his membership in the Hitler Youth.

there are some things you just dont compromise about if it means anything to you. I have never been in hitlers youth and I refuse to compromise my morals or my religous beliefs.

 

[Fallschirmjager]

So whats the views on this then?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hAbL28TVkVsC_ZP1Vdg7hlW8gPDw

Seems to me that the Pope, in all his God given wisdom, has a totally irrational and groundless fear of homosexuality.

It seems to me that the Pope is being consistent in his doctrinal treatment of the "gay" issue, but to say that his noting it from that doctrinal point of view is "irrational" or "groundless fear of homosexuality", is completely false. The teachings of the Church with regard to homosexuality, whether we agree with them or not, have not changed in the nearly 2000 years that the Church has existed, and as the head of the Church, he is merely espousing the "company line". That does not make him "irrational", nor "fearful", it makes him consistent.

 

[numinus]

So whats the views on this then?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hAbL28TVkVsC_ZP1Vdg7hlW8gPDw

Seems to me that the Pope, in all his God given wisdom, has a totally irrational and groundless fear of homosexuality.

Although the figure is contested, the general agreement is that the percentage of the population who are gay does not exceed 10% in any nation (and is most likely and more often significantly lower). I couldn't find any definite figures but a quick google search shows this is the general consensus.

Either, the Pope doubts humanities ability to realise that hetereosexual sex = babies, or he's not quite as clever as he's made out to be.

You think humanae vitae is groundless, hmmm?

Care to point out exactly what in that document is groundless and fear-induced, hmmm?

 

[Segep]

Seems to me that the Pope, in all his God given wisdom, has a totally irrational and groundless fear of homosexuality.

That was/is quite common in the Nazi party, so there is no surprise there.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I personally dislike this Pope very much but I do respect that he is trying to get the RCC back to its roots.

I am not sure it is fair for anyone to say he liked being in hitlers youth or disliked it. actually since he was forced it safer to say he did not like it. You have a right to think he got jollys out of it I supose but it doesnt seem realistic to me, and I dont even like the man.

When I remember the Inquistion and the burning at the stake of Joan of Arc, I don't want the Catholic church to get back to its roots.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It seems to me that the Pope is being consistent in his doctrinal treatment of the "gay" issue, but to say that his noting it from that doctrinal point of view is "irrational" or "groundless fear of homosexuality", is completely false. The teachings of the Church with regard to homosexuality, whether we agree with them or not, have not changed in the nearly 2000 years that the Church has existed, and as the head of the Church, he is merely espousing the "company line". That does not make him "irrational", nor "fearful", it makes him consistent.

Actually, it makes him ignorant of his own church's history. But I understand that Mr. Fallschir... (whatever) is banned so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You think humanae vitae is groundless, hmmm?

Care to point out exactly what in that document is groundless and fear-induced, hmmm?

How about the stuff between page 1 and the end? Hysteria and hate over homosexuality is religious idiocy in light of the fact that it is just a variation in the mammal's sexual response. Nums, you're smart guy, how is it that you don't know that homosexual pair-bonding has been found in almost all the "higher" animals--more than 1500 species to date. It's been around all of human history, all cultures, all times, and in many species. There have been gay Catholic saints for God's sake--that got married and blessed by the church.

 

[numinus]

When I remember the Inquistion and the burning at the stake of Joan of Arc, I don't want the Catholic church to get back to its roots.

Just by looking at the chronology of church history, it would be obvious that the church's root isn't medieval christianity.

 

[numinus]

How about the stuff between page 1 and the end?

It doesn't work that way, now, does it?

You need to show a specific statement in the document that is without any reasonable basis or based on some irrational fear.

Otherwise, you are merely sending me on some fool's errand.

Hysteria and hate over homosexuality is religious idiocy in light of the fact that it is just a variation in the mammal's sexual response. Nums, you're smart guy, how is it that you don't know that homosexual pair-bonding has been found in almost all the "higher" animals--more than 1500 species to date. It's been around all of human history, all cultures, all times, and in many species. There have been gay Catholic saints for God's sake--that got married and blessed by the church.

This is nonsense. All sorts of human behavior has been observed in both man and animals. There simply isn't any reason one should consider them as moral imperatives. And as a moral teaching, I cannot see anything wrong with the church's position.

 

[Segep]

answer the question nummy. How is it that you don't know (or refuse to recognize) homosexuality in higher animal species? Or if you do, how is it that you refuse to realize that it harms no one and may in fact be beneficial in some cases? How is it that you make the obvious mistake in logic that equates "morally OK" with "morally imperative"? They are not the same thing at all, and I think you know that.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Just by looking at the chronology of church history, it would be obvious that the church's root isn't medieval christianity.

Non sequitur, try again.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It doesn't work that way, now, does it?
You need to show a specific statement in the document that is without any reasonable basis or based on some irrational fear.
Otherwise, you are merely sending me on some fool's errand.

Who better to send? It's kind of like the Bible, no matter what I say, you'll say I'm misinterpreting it or I don't understand it--look at the things you said to me on the Proving God thread. 99% of religious dogma is just useless twitter.

This is nonsense. All sorts of human behavior has been observed in both man and animals. There simply isn't any reason one should consider them as moral imperatives. And as a moral teaching, I cannot see anything wrong with the church's position.

The Catholic church is the one pushing "moral imperatives" not me. I don't have to run other consenting adult's sex lives. Sexual behavior in animals can't be moral or immoral can it? I fail to see how harmless sexual activity between consenting adults needs to be driven by Catholic morality either.

 

[numinus]

answer the question nummy. How is it that you don't know (or refuse to recognize) homosexuality in higher animal species?

I do recognize it. Quite frankly, I believe that homosexuality in animals is a product of environmental or societal pressures. Whatever causes it, has no relevance to morality.

Or if you do, how is it that you refuse to realize that it harms no one and may in fact be beneficial in some cases?

I'm sorry but how can anal sex be a safe practice? Or, how is it beneficial?

How is it that you make the obvious mistake in logic that equates "morally OK" with "morally imperative"? They are not the same thing at all, and I think you know that.

Eh?

Actions derive their justification from all sorts of reasons -- hence their moral worth merely subjective.

A moral good is a good in itself.

 

[numinus]

Who better to send? It's kind of like the Bible, no matter what I say, you'll say I'm misinterpreting it or I don't understand it--look at the things you said to me on the Proving God thread. 99% of religious dogma is just useless twitter.

No. The thing is, you are criticizing the moral teaching of the catholic church without even knowing the logic behind these teachings.

So, if you really can't be bothered to say exactly what in the document you disagree with, then there really isn't any reason why you should criticize the pope for saying the things he is saying. After all, you are free to ignore him if you wish.

The Catholic church is the one pushing "moral imperatives" not me. I don't have to run other consenting adult's sex lives. Sexual behavior in animals can't be moral or immoral can it? I fail to see how harmless sexual activity between consenting adults needs to be driven by Catholic morality either.

It is the function of the church to teach, in the same way that its founder taught. It is freely given to people who wish to learn from the church's authority. Nobody will take it against you if you refuse the teaching, now, would they?