New Pope Thread

I find the phraseology of the question odd but, yes, I think so. People are certainly responsible for their actions, however I don't think something someone did sixty years ago before they were even an adult and hasn't done since is relevant to a current assessment of them as a person. Why do I care what the bible says? For that matter, why would the Pope? In Catholic doctrine, the bible is just one source of god's word to be taken along side the traditions of the Catholic church and the proclamations of the Pope - now since the Catholic church accepts that Priests have the authority to take confession and give pennance; clearly that requires that a Priest has the authority to pass judgement. Even, if we did take the biblical statement as relevant, the interpretation is highly questionable. One could argue that the Pope is making a statement on the issue of the morality of homosexuality, not passing judgement on any particular homosexual. Except, as I'm sure you'd find if you enquired, the Pope does not consider homosexuality to be something you have no control over. Nor, I believe, does the Catholic church consider homosexuality to be an unforgivable sin - I don't believe they'd consider a homosexual act commited sixty years ago, and which you have confessed, to be relevant.

If you can remember the Middle Ages, the cathlolic church persecuted the protestant churches and disobedient followers through the Inquisition and other forms of persectution. Ever stopped to think about Benedict's name?
Benedict = the final enforcer
Obviously there is a plot here. Let's ask the Jesuit priests who so willingly serve their pope...
Will someone please answer? We could be headed for another Middle Ages!

But that's not what I asked. Are people responsible for their own sexual orientation, or are they not? Not actions. Orientation. No, he recognizes the non-voluntary nature of sexual orientation. He thinks it's a sin anyway. Not just having gay sex, but being gay is both an abomination and something people have no control over/ One could argue that, but one would be wrong. This Pope has, indeed, passed judgement on all homosexuals, by referring to their very nature - not just their actions - as sinful. While at the same time recognizing that they have no choice in the matter of their nature.Well, that's fine. We'll judge him by the same standard.

I'm not sure how that can be a meaningful question? How can you be held responsible for something you don't do? Do you have a reference for that? I'm not overly familiar with Catholic doctrine, I'll freely admit, but it doesn't match up with what I've heard elsewhere. 1. I haven't said anything about whether he had a choice or not comes into it; I've argued that it's irrelevant what someone did sixty years ago, especially when it was before they were even an adult. So I am again puzzled as to the relevance of what you're saying.2. How is that a good argument anyway? It smacks of "but he did it first, miss" to me. If you don't think it's just to judge someone over something they have no control over, you should not judge him over it - it makes no difference what he thinks on the matter. "Do unto others and you would have them do unto you" and all that.

Ask the Catholics. According to them you can be held responsible, and bear the consequences, of your nature, not just your actions. For instance, the doctrine of Original Sin.Here's a column on that very topic: Page not found | Commonweal Magazine

quote:

---

But suppose I have no inner consciousness of betraying the truth and have tried hard to possess a clear conscience? Too bad. You are in worse trouble, more spiritually ill, when you don’t feel your guilt any more, another culpable victim of "the subjectivist philosophy of the modern age."

---

I don't think it's irrelevant. Time doesn't erase transgressions. An old moral evil is still evil. Great. He was too young to know better. According to him, not knowing any better is no excuse. I don't think it's just, and that's what allows me to judge him. For being unjust. That's exactly what I'm doing to him. What he has done unto others.

Cardinal Ratzinger was also the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; that's right, Pope Benedict XVI was the head of the Inquisition!

Which simply shows a misunderstanding of what the saying means. No where does it say "do to others as they have done to you", but rather "do to others as You Would Like Them to do to you.But Benedict XVI still has said nothing related to homosexuality so any comments on his position are premature and pure speculation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I know. I know that's what it says, and that's what I'm doing to him - What He Would Like Me to Do. I mean, he's certainly never done anything to me, right? As Pope? No, I suppose not. Certainly he's spoken on the subject before now, though.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-21-2005 10:39 AM

You still misstate and misunderstand the saying. It is, once again; "To do unto others as YOU would have them do unto you". It has nothing to do with what they would like to do to you.If you're going to discuss such issues, try to get the basic premise right.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm really starting to wonder about the relevance of this thread. This is, after all, the EvC forum. I've tried to address the views of the new Pope on that topic, which, as far as I can tell,are similar to if not identical to his predecessor's.As to the other topics being discussed, I am somewhat puzzled as to why an American non-Catholic would be concerned about the new Pope's views on those issues. After all, ther is no coercion to become a Catholic.It also appears some posters are displaying a pattern of being misinformed as to actual Catholic doctrine. For instance, ignorance or coercion may indeed in some cases be mitigating factors, decreasing the level of culpability of a sinful act, contrary to a previous assertion.I don't expect non-Catholics to be in agreement with, or pleased with, all or even any aspects of Catholic moral teaching. This would be naively unrealistic. It would, however, be helpful if they were fully informed as to whether what it is they are criticizing is in fact the case.

quote:

---

I am somewhat puzzled as to why an American non-Catholic would be concerned about the new Pope's views on those issues.

---

The Roman Catholic Church is a large institution that has an effect on non-Catholics. The Pope is an important figure, with influence among non-Catholics. The Pope and the RCC routinely try to influence the policies of secular institutions. It isn't unreasonable for non-Catholics to be so interested in the views and policies of the new Pope.

Thanks for the information on the Pope. I just have one more thing to say to you: What makes you think I'm paranoid! I can't wait for the scriptures to be fulfilled so I can cry out with even more vigor, "Jesus is Coming Again!"

could be? we are. the whole world has been on a steady shift towards conservatism since the beginning of the industrial era. people got really freaked out (as best i can tell) after the liberalism (i use this in the old, european sense) took over and wanted to be ruled again.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-21-2005 12:29 PM

Your points are valid, as far as they go. What puzzles me is how some non-Catholics in the Western world are dismayed that the new Pope isn't going to change Church policy on certain issues to their liking. It fails to take into account:1) that the Church, being a large and worldwide institution may see these pet Western issues as quite low on the priority list,2) that the Church is not even going to consider modifying its stance on issues it considers matters of infallible dogma,3) that the Church , when changing its stance on matters that are not infallible dogma and thus in principle, subject to change, is still historically very slow and gradual. For instance the vernacular Mass was suggested at the time of the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s, and determined to not be in conflict with Catholic dogma at that time, but of course, was not actually implemented until the Second Vatican Council in the mid 1960s.

Well, I was somewhat puzzled as to why a German cardinal would be concerned about who Americans would vote for in the US Presidential election. But sure enough, Cardinal Ratzinger felt the need to inform American catholics that a vote for Kerry would send you right to hell. Oh, not yet, anyway. Never mind that there's an enormous, and currently quite influential, movement in the US to make sure that you, no matter what you believe, live according to the Bible and recognize the Christian God as sovereign every single morning in school.There's currently no coercion to be Christian (unless you want to seek public office), but there's an enormous movement to make sure you live Christian. I don't really see the difference. As such, the views of this new Pope, regarded by even Protestants as a spiritual leader, are very relevant to people, like me, whose views on religion are very much a hated minority. Maybe you could write the new Pope and tell him so. How's your German?