Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
"Impeach the Pope"
Linc
Site ownerDetroit Moderator
A strongly-worded editorial in the Washington Post suggests that the Pope has gone too far.
0
Comments
"It should be obvious that the sin in an over-populated world is not attempting to control birth, but attempting to control birth control."
How True!
But for the pope to broadcast from his "bully pulpit" that condom use is worsening the AIDS blight in Africa is entirely unconscionable.
Consistent, at least, somebody said? Nope, Pope! You act as if strong urges that lay people have can simply be ignored and easily turned away from, whilst your cardinals let your ordained troops indulge in any kind of indulgence they like and would even let them cover it up if they could. SHAME! SHAME!
No, that's called a double standard in our less hierarchical world.
Your callousness and cluelessness in this matter is sinful and you do not represent the Christ any more than anyone in positions of health care would represent good practice if they were to listen to you in this matter.
The good people of this world deserve some remediation in this matter. What you have said is inaccurate, unjust, harmful and inordinately dismissive of important issues. You owe the whole world an apology.
I saw recently a PBS production of Oliver Twist in which the word "impeach" was used in lieu of "arrest." We may not be able to call for that, he being the Head of State of some very foreign monarchy, but:
Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope! Repudiate the Pope!
Demonising the old men in Rome only serves to distract from the fact that, by leaving our young to learn about sex outwith a structured and informative context we are exposing them to extreme risk. And by withholding funds from organisations which advise on abortion alongside fertility planning and safe sex is direct action whereas the Pope is only hot air.
Surely it is time to ignore mere talk and "impeach" those who voted to cripple the funding of overseas advice-giving groups? It's just to easy to criticise a foreign priest and allow home-grown prejudice to flourish.
Hi Simon,
It's easy for people like us to ignore such nonsense but this isn't possible in some quarters, where the word of the Pope is deemed sacrosanct.
Even my father in law who is well educated has, in his old age, sacrificed his objectivity in favour of bowing to every pronouncement the Vatican makes.
This "mere talk" will cost lives, as those who have no wish to use condoms will find 'holy approval' for not doing so.
The Vatican has much to answer for.
Look at the recent case of the nine year old girl in Brazil who was raped by her stepfather and was carrying his twins. Those who carried out the life-saving abortion and who sanctioned it have been ex-communicated (backed by the Vatican).
No word of ex-communication for the perpetrator. I guess he can confess and say a few hail Mary's and the jobs done.
Link to story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7930380.stm
It's tough enough for a child to be raped and to undergo abortion. But then to learn that her mother has been ex-communicated as a result is just unbelievable. The Vatican have completed what the rapist initiated, the destruction of the lives of these two people.
This so-called scholar Pope hasn't got a clue about real life. He's spent his time cloistered away with his books and doctrines and it's painfully obvious every time he opens his mouth. He's a fool but a dangerous one, as his office carries huge power with it.
Namaste
I think the nicest thing the Brazilian catholic church did was excommunicate the girl's mother and doctors. Now they're free from an unhealthy spiritual situation and can seek spiritual growth and development elsewhere. There is clearly very little comfort or wise guidance to be had from a church that would react as it did in this case.
I've been so disappointed by the catholic church and its present pope lately and I feel for my parents who are both catholic. They're unhappy about the leadership of their church which is sad because these are their Golden Years and I wish they could have a pope they could love with all their hearts.
But luckily they don't depend too heavily on the Vatican when it comes to their spiritual growth and development. They have Jesus and the saints for that, thank goodness.
Remember that HHDL condemned homosexuality and then apologised. Getting things wrong is not the problem - inability to change one's mind is.
And why no comment on the attitude of the US Congres towards sex education and overseas aid?
And you're absolutely right, Simon. It IS the ability to change one's mind that counts.
"There is an old and somewhat foolish saying that 'Hard cases make bad law,' and therefore the law must be left as it is. It would be equally true to say, 'Bad law makes hard cases,' and therefore the law much be amended. The real truth lies somewhere between."
One thing I can't accuse this pope of being is inconsistent. He apparently 'slandered' Muslims by saying that Muhammed spread his religion by the sword (which he did), to which Muslims responded to by murdering and rioting.
Even though I disagree with the pope on some things, he's essentially right in that we have more to fear from stinting population growth than letting it expand. Keep in mind that European countries like Spain and Italy will have their populations reduced drastically in the next 50 years just because of pathetically low birthrates.
Fortunately for the Church, the pope isn't letting himself be strong-armed by weak-willed moral relativists and the self-hating intelligentsia of Western Europe. He stands by his principles.
If I were a Buddhist doctor faced with this decision, I would continue with the abortion.
Had the child been permitted to go to term, it would almost certainly have irreparably damaged her, and there is the pertinent question as to whether the foetuses would have in fact, even survived. In this specific case, it is evident that the child is simply neither mentally, nor physically equipped to bear the babies, and psychologically, I'm sure she was already severely wounded.
On the face of it, I fear I would be prepared to bear the kammic consequences of 'destroying' two lives, rather than take a backward step of possibly risking destroying three.
As Lord Krshna tell Arjuna: "You are condemned to a field of action (karma)."
Even so, I think saying that the distribution of condoms increases the problem of AIDS in a country where 22.5 million people are living with HIV is, well, misguided to say the least. He is right that AIDS cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms and money alone, but people are going to have sex whether they are Catholic or not, and telling them that condoms increase the problem sends the wrong message.
To characterize anyone who opposes the Vatican's directives as "weak-willed moral relativists" or "self-hating intelligentsia of Western Europe" says a lot.
My point is that this should not be a separate thread about abortion because that takes us away from the specific case, away from the personal into the theoretical.
Has no one asked themselves what it was like for the parents who had to chose whether (possibly) to lose their daughter or their grandchildren? These are real people, not some 'case study' and chalklenge our compassion.
Unless, of course, this thread is simply an exercise in Pope-bashing.
Simon, I contend that anyone who tells people in Africa not to use condoms deserves a bashing, as it's irresponsible in the extreme. The Dali Lama also needed a bashing for his bigotry against gays. Anyone who starts to push his or her diktats on sexuality down the throats of adults around the world can honestly expect all they get. Still, as a martyr to the cause it won't harm him - merely the poor individuals who follow his advice.
The abortion? Yes, I would have agreed. I would opt to save the life of my daughter if she had been raped and take whatever karmic consequences came my way.
Do you think that anyone has the right (or duty) to dictate another's sexual behaviour?
I think that the Vatican realizes this too. That is why they have apparently edited the Pope's comments after the fact: Vatican edits pope on condoms and AIDS solutions
I think there are plenty of people who think they do.
Gosh, I'd hate to see any subject barred, truncated, or scurried away right when we're getting around to discussing 'em. This website is graced every day with off-topic post and fragments. It's a beautiful, laid-back thing, really.
This pope-bashing business, which interests me right now, is not really such a bad thing, either. Who'd have thought the rule-bound Pharisees would have thrown off the gentle yoke of Jesus two millennia ago, and put a fox in to guard the poor wee cheekins?
Jesus's ministry is one of Healing and the pope would let Disease be spread at will.
Jesus would teach loving-acceptance, justice and forgiveness, whilst the pope preaches a gospel of some strange personal purity achieved by following a codex prescribing special mystical treatment of some undiscoverable parts of our anatomy. Those regions of our life are forever to be governed by "moral principles" that no mere human science could ever figure out satisfactor-iroarily.
"The Holy Father says" if you be like this and think like that you'll be better off.
Well, those days are gone. The mind of the world has gone democratic and we live in a world of laws and not of men. Personages, popes, presidents, princes, and kings have lost their high stature and have been brought down low to the level of the people. In tomorrow's world, they'll have to pull themselves up by the "bootstraps" of their own wits, integrity, and character. More WILL be expected of them and from them. The revolt of the masses is not a bad thing. The nobles of the future will have to be of Noble SOUL.
Noble soul is not exemplified in men and women of letters. There's too much suffering in the world brought about by Thomas Aquinas and his lot. Men and women of Noble Action, such as Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and every mother's loving heart: They are our nobility, our Best.
The Noble Souls, by their self-sacrificing love enrich the soil below them and call blessing down on us from the skies above. And those who do go forth in self-sacrifice bear abundant fruit and we know them by the peace and the joy they leave behind them in our wake.
I didn't say I agree with him all the time, but I said he was consistent.
What prominent European (besides the ones fleeing to America) actually stands up for Western Civilization? I think the pope does a pretty good job of it. He doesn't bow down to the whims of public opinion because he knows what's right, and he follows through with it.
And "weak willed" and "moral relativist" are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. And please, have you been to a university lately? Professors are hardly the champions for Western civilization.
Is that what they call chastity these days?
I confused two threads (bloody pre-dementia and drugs). My comments about the tragic events in Brazil went into this one instead of the right one. The confusion arose from the similarity of the opprobrium.
Mea maxima culpa.
He sure is consistent.
Come to Europe one day KOB. You'll benefit from a visit - honestly.
He stands for his version of things. His remit extends way beyond Europe though.
Now that's what my father in law says too. You're not gonna change religion on us are you?
Should have been drowned at birth, the lot of them I say... or was it that room mate of yours who told me that?
Funny you should ask. Yes, I was at one last night in fact for a fascinating talk by a professor on 'Britain as an Imperial Roman possession'. It was fascinating stuff. The professors I've heard recently are doing some sterling work.
I would consider this to be a good thing. Anything that helps bring the perversion of Christ's teachings that is known as the Roman Catholic Church to destruction has got my support. This latest gaffe by the ivory-tower pope reaches a new low, even for him. How many more lives must be sacrificed to these holy stooges in Rome?
And Simon, your attitude that one can simply ignore wrong speech and maybe it'll go away is simply wrong. That is the Neville Chamberlin approach (and we all know how well that went!). The notion that we can somehow ignore evil and it won't be there is morally bankrupt. We have to stand up to evil wherever it raises its ugly little head and beat it back into the ground.
I find it very interesting and hopeful that in a survey done by American Catholic bishops, nearly 100% of American Catholics ignore the pronouncements of the Vatican and practice safe sex and birth control. Hooray for them! Now, if we could just make them go one step further and become Buddhists...
As for the Brazilian situation, it is obvious that the Catholic church made an ass of itself one more time. The statement by the Archbishop saying that it was wrong to excommunicate the people involved does not go so far as to say that the excommunication will be lifted, does it? Guess that would be a little too politically hot for the bish.
As for the Buddhist standpoint on such a situation, you have to remember that Buddhism does not have hard and fast rules. No "thou shalt nots" in Buddhism! It's never that easy. You can't come out with a blanket statement that covers all possible permutations. That's what the law tries to do, and that's what religions of the law (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) try to do. It has never worked for them, and it will never work. People are far too complex. In this case I would definitely support what was done. Seems like a no-brainer for me. Why wouldn't you? What would be gained by not doing the abortion? As for the resulting karma, the motivation is the key here, I would say, the motivation being the best outcome for all involved. Generally speaking, I am against abortions because it is killing a potential human life, and to be reborn as a human is any being's best shot at enlightenment. This is especially true in cases where the pregnancy is inconvenient rather than life-threatening and the abortion is done with little thought or regard for the fetus. But it is not a hard and fast rule.
Palzang
Palzang
:rolleyes:
I've been to Europe before.
Just how long do you think Europe as we know it will be around for? 20 years? 50? With plummeting birthrates and massive Muslim immigration, places like France are going to be very different by the end of the century.
Opposed to whom? He stands for his version of things just as much as I do. I like how the fact that the pope has principles (albeit different from yours) is something to be sneered at.
That would be my eugenicist room mate that you refer to.
Well I'm glad to hear that there are a few good ones. But personally, I don't feel like I would learn anything of value in classes like "Gender as a Social Construct" or "Black Studies 1-3."
And history classes that do nothing but bemoan the history of the West hardly inspires confidence in civilization.
Really? Speaking as someone who grew up Catholic, I think the guy has been great. He at least acknowledges the very real threat that we face from Islamic jihadists. (see his Regensburg speech).
I'm afraid I haven't. But my concern over Europe has nothing to do with racial supremacy. It has to do with just what is going to happen when places like France are Muslim majority. A lot of people fear sharia law, and I am among those who do.
The pope, unpopular though he may be, at least has the guts to recognize the threat posed by jihadists.
.
The Pope does not administer laws in a society.
It is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that their followers live without birth control.
Yes it is....but most of the Catholics I know don't take any notice of it!
Exactly.
People are acting like this birth control stance just came out from the Vatican. But as far as I know, they've always been against it, so I don't quite understand all the shock and awe about it.
If we look at the matter objectively & widely, common use of reliable birth control, namely, the pill, is now only forty years old. Or looking back to when I was sexually active, the pill was younger than I was.
From the perspective of human & social evolution, reliable & commonly used birth control is something very recent. However, most cannot imagine 'normality' to be otherwise.
To want to deny women the possibility of choosing another way forward for themselves is inhuman.
.
My grandmother (who I never met) had eighteen children, who lived in a certain culture and whose husband was an alcoholic and sexually obsessed.
However, my mother never used birth control but had control over her marriage. As I see it, in regards to sexuality, my mother had power & freedom (however having a dutiful husband helped her). My mother is a strong woman. My mother does not have the 'sexual neediness' many women have.
When I was a teenager, in Australia, to obtain the pill a girl was required to go to the 'Family Planning Clinic'. A doctor could not prescribe the pill.
I think the pill is good for family planning but teenage girls are not married and therefore not 'family planning'. If the pill was not given to teenage girls, then those with natural lack of self-control would fall pregnant and those with natural wisdom & strengh would flourish. They would become very strong women. Today, strong women with strong ingrained moral values are becoming less in the world. When women lose their natural, innate moral values & wisdom, the world has problems. For me, it is women who are the ones always making moral demands. "I wish my boyfriend/husband would do this, and not do that, and be like this, etc, etc, etc,".
With contraception, human beings become over-sexualised and often develop wrong views about sex. With both of these things occuring, relationships can become unstable, thus the very high divorce rates in the West and a plethora of relationship problems.
When I was 12 years old, I received hard-core sex education at school. It was though there was an expectation that we should "do it" (and of course many kids were already "doing it"). As a teenager, my mind was heavily conditioned that sex was just a play thing, and it was until I saw the dukkha befalling others, especially women.
Birth control is something physical. However, much of the debate and education neglects the psychological issues related to it.
My stance is birth control is a very good thing. However, ideally, it must be used with care. Birth control is a form of 'freedom' and with every increase in freedom and increase in 'responsibility' is required.
Freedom & responsibility always go hand-in-hand. Also, idealism is just delusion. The world is just the way it is, following its own spiritual evolution.
Yes I agree with most of what you've said DD...but I'm not sure about what you said concerning the 'sexual neediness' of women. Men can be totally obsessed with sex and playing around, even when married.
DD, Your mother was born into a generation where birth control was in it's embryonic development. Women of her age were far less educated and informed about such matters, because it was still considered a subject of controversy....
Now that extraordinary advances have been made in this field, more women are taking advantage of the greater choice of these methods, as they become more well-known and more available.
My mother tells me she would have used contraception, had she been more informed. A Good Catholic Italian woman she is, too......
However, I do agree that the whole way in which sex education is put over and taught to the young is completely ace-about-face....
Responsibility, respect, affection and intimacy should be emphasised.
I think you have taken my words the wrong way. I was referring to tanha. My view is, naturally, many women find their greatest joy in caring for their children. This is like a bodhisatva path.
Again, I think you missed my point.
My mother is a strong and generous woman. She does not have sexual neediness. She is free or liberated to that degree. Whilst she can miss her children, she does not long for a man.
My mother had self-control, control over her husband and certain priorities.