The new Pope is

[resolution]

Mar 14, 2013 10:30:13 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Mar 13, 2013 19:30:31 GMT -5 resolution said:

The church needs significant reform and has an immense amount of momentum to overcome. For example we recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, which is when the mass was changed from Latin to English and there is still a faction of the church that is saying mass in Latin and trying to get it reinstated. Perhaps he will have a special longevity, but I don't think he will be around long enough to really see through any big changes. I hope I am wrong.

Um, neither of the Popes involved in Vatican II lived very long after becoming Pope. 

Pope Paul VI was pope for 15 years, which I thought was pretty good. He was in his 60s when he became pope.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 14, 2013 10:54:32 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Mar 14, 2013 9:18:30 GMT -5 resolution said:

At least he has a sincere focus on humility and helping the poor.

His choice of a name pretty much sends that message. 

And may I add I don't think that being progressive is necessairly going to help with the priest scandal.  Transparency and accountability are absolutely necessary, no doubt about that.  But it's no accident that the epicenter of the priest scandal (boston) is one of the most 'off the reservation' liberal dioceases in this country.  The bishop there had so much compassion and forgiveness for the predators, that there was none left for the victims, a very common trait amongst those on the left.  He believed all those smart and progressive psychologists who swore up and down they could cure these guys, wanted to give the priests second chances, and stuck them back into the parishes, when he should have (at the very least) been moving them into ministries where they wouldn't come in contact with children.  When you're dealing with predators, you don't need someone in charge who sees evil as 'mistakes'. 

I am of the opinion the priest sexual abuse of children is a ticking time bomb in Latin America. It has been uncovered in northern North America and parts of Europe. Little has been uncovered (yet) or discussed in Latin America. Time will tell what happens there.

[sarcasticgirl]

Mar 13, 2013 14:55:57 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

a Jesuit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am doing the happy dance. The Jesuits are the most liberal, progressive of the Catholic orders. Their approach to the Catholic faith is based upon being Christ for others and the Golden Rule. Dogmatic details (divorce, birth control, sexuality, etc.) are framed in love -- not division and exclusion.

I am excited about the future of the Carholic faith for the first time in a long time.

Viva la Papa Francisco!!!!

He's anti-gay, has called gay adoptions "discrimination against children"  and is against birth control...

he sounds pretty liberal to me! 

[thyme4change]

Last night my husband said, with a good bit of emotion "The new pope is a Jesuit."  I said "I don't know what that means."  And he answered "Neither do I."  So, I'm not sure why he was so excited.  LOL - middle aged marriage is exactly what I was told it would be, and not at all what I expected.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 14, 2013 13:41:34 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

Mar 13, 2013 14:55:57 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

a Jesuit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am doing the happy dance. The Jesuits are the most liberal, progressive of the Catholic orders. Their approach to the Catholic faith is based upon being Christ for others and the Golden Rule. Dogmatic details (divorce, birth control, sexuality, etc.) are framed in love -- not division and exclusion.

I am excited about the future of the Carholic faith for the first time in a long time.

Viva la Papa Francisco!!!!

He's anti-gay, has called gay adoptions "discrimination against children"  and is against birth control...

he sounds pretty liberal to me! 

He's also from a country where same-sex marriage is legal.

[swamp]

has called gay adoptions "discrimination against children"

he should probably be more concerned with the sexual abuse of children, but nobody asked my opinion.

[sarcasticgirl]

Mar 14, 2013 13:53:44 GMT -5 swamp said:

has called gay adoptions "discrimination against children"

he should probably be more concerned with the sexual abuse of children, but nobody asked my opinion.

[midjd]

The bishop there had so much compassion and forgiveness for the predators, that there was none left for the victims, a very common trait amongst those on the left.

Seriously?

I don't think it had anything to do with political persuasion or "compassion"... the real question is whether the greater interest was 1) money; or 2) protecting the institution. But definitely a heaping helping of both. Fundamentally, no different from the Penn State/Sandusky scandal.

I also know of no studies that show that pedophiles (and those who protect them) subscribe to a specific political ideology. They come in all stripes.

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

Mar 14, 2013 13:53:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Mar 14, 2013 13:41:34 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

He's anti-gay, has called gay adoptions "discrimination against children"  and is against birth control...

he sounds pretty liberal to me! 

He's also from a country where same-sex marriage is legal.

I "hear" what both of you are saying.  But, as I said in the other post, I believe the only chance that any of the dogma in the Catholic faith will change/soften is with a Jesuit.  They're not UUs, but for Catholic priests, they're pretty darn liberal.  

[Tennesseer]

Mar 14, 2013 16:01:41 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

Mar 14, 2013 13:53:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

He's also from a country where same-sex marriage is legal.

I "hear" what both of you are saying.  But, as I said in the other post, I believe the only chance that any of the dogma in the Catholic faith will change/soften is with a Jesuit.  They're not UUs, but for Catholic priests, they're pretty darn liberal.  

NO doubt GRG.  But that liberalism only goes so far.  What Jesuits might think is liberal, many of us would still classify as down right ultra-orthodox.  I think many Jesuits do have a liberal bent and privately advise parishioners to do what they think is best regarding their personal lives (birth control, divorce, gay issues, and the like).  Speaking publicly as a priest or speaking from the church pulpit, they must follow Rome's directives-or out they go!

I don't expect any change to the church's stance on the hot button social issues the U.S. faces. 

[Phoenix84]

Mar 14, 2013 13:41:34 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

Mar 13, 2013 14:55:57 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

a Jesuit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am doing the happy dance. The Jesuits are the most liberal, progressive of the Catholic orders. Their approach to the Catholic faith is based upon being Christ for others and the Golden Rule. Dogmatic details (divorce, birth control, sexuality, etc.) are framed in love -- not division and exclusion.

I am excited about the future of the Carholic faith for the first time in a long time.

Viva la Papa Francisco!!!!

He's anti-gay, has called gay adoptions "discrimination against children"  and is against birth control...

he sounds pretty liberal to me! 

I've seen a couple of articles about this.  Basically an analysis of how the Pope is not "progressive" or "liberal" within the church for taking a stance against same sex marriage, birth control, divorce ect.

Not that I want to turn this into a religious discussion, but OF COURSE he's against those things.  I don't think you'll ever have a pope come out and say "yeah, same sex marriage is cool."  That's not "progressive" or "liberal" or not, that's just plain against the teachings of the church. 

I can understand how atheists have a hard time understanding this, but the idea behind religion is the belief in a higher power, and that power reveals itself in certain ways (like the bible).  And the bible very specifically says homosexuality is sinful, divorce is wrong, ect.  So the Pope is never going to unilaterally accept those things as dogma because the main relgious text they use specifically condemns them.  Of course, if you don't believe in God, then it makes no sense to do it that way and from the outside.  God doesn't change his mind on what's sinful and what's not just because many in the U.S or elsewhere thing it's okay.  In religion you don't just "make up the rules" as you go along. 

But yeah, this whole "analysis" of news agencies saying the new Pope is against the idea of same sex marriage and same sex adoptions and he's not "liberal" because he doesn't believe in that...

I'm like "well, no shit sherlock."  What'd you expect? 

Some things are more open to interpretation, but same sex marriage is NOT one of those things.  If people are waiting for a Pope to embrace same sex marriage as a sign of "liberalism" then they're going to be waiting a long time. 

[Tennesseer]

I can understand how atheists have a hard time understanding this,...

Atheism has nothing to do with it.  Right now the majority of the country believes same-sex marriage should be legal.  Are you saying the majority of the country is atheist?  I don't think so.

American Catholics have disagreed with the Vatican for years over birth control, divorce and the like.  Just because they disagree with those issues doesn't make them atheists.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 14, 2013 17:14:53 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I can understand how atheists have a hard time understanding this,...

Atheism has nothing to do with it.  Right now the majority of the country believes same-sex marriage should be legal.  Are you saying the majority of the country is atheist?  I don't think so.

American Catholics have disagreed with the Vatican for years over birth control, divorce and the like.  Just because they disagree with those issues doesn't make them atheists.

The point is religion isn't like a club where members vote on dogma and what's allowed and what's not allowed.  The idea is God (or whatever power that religion worships) decides those things.  If you start treating religion like American Idol then you aren't really a religion. 

Granted, religion and dogma and how people worship has changed a lot over the centuries, but many of the fundamental beliefs are the same.  

[Tennesseer]

Mar 14, 2013 17:23:00 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 14, 2013 17:14:53 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Atheism has nothing to do with it.  Right now the majority of the country believes same-sex marriage should be legal.  Are you saying the majority of the country is atheist?  I don't think so.

American Catholics have disagreed with the Vatican for years over birth control, divorce and the like.  Just because they disagree with those issues doesn't make them atheists.

The point is religion isn't like a club where members vote on dogma and what's allowed and what's not allowed.  The idea is God (or whatever power that religion worships) decides those things.  If you start treating religion like American Idol then you aren't really a religion. 

Granted, religion and dogma and how people worship has changed a lot over the centuries, but many of the fundamental beliefs are the same.  

Aren't you going to address your atheist issue? Is it your position if you don't believe everything in the bible, and I do mean everything, then you are an atheist? Or if you are a follower of Islam, and you don't believe everything in the Koran, then you must be an atheist?

[Tennesseer]

And you are right religion isn't like a club. Clubs have rules you must follow or you get kicked out.

Religion is personal, private issue and each of us view it our own unique way.

[Deleted]

Mar 14, 2013 17:40:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And you are right religion isn't like a club. Clubs have rules you must follow or you get kicked out.

Religion is personal, private issue and each of us view it our own unique way.

Faith is personal.  Religion is not.

[Tennesseer]

What religion I follow is personal and no one else's business.

You call it faith. I call it religion.

[Deleted]

Mar 14, 2013 17:47:15 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

What religion I follow is personal and no one else's business.

You call it faith. I call it religion.

You don't see what I'm saying.  Having faith is personal.  It is completely on your terms.  When you believe in religion, you are tying your beliefs to a larger group.

[midjd]

I can understand how atheists have a hard time understanding this, but the idea behind religion is the belief in a higher power, and that power reveals itself in certain ways (like the bible).  And the bible very specifically says homosexuality is sinful, divorce is wrong, ect.  So the Pope is never going to unilaterally accept those things as dogma because the main relgious text they use specifically condemns them.  Of course, if you don't believe in God, then it makes no sense to do it that way and from the outside.  God doesn't change his mind on what's sinful and what's not just because many in the U.S or elsewhere thing it's okay.  In religion you don't just "make up the rules" as you go along.

But the Bible is the word of God - as recorded by man, right? Humans are pretty fallible creatures and tend to "hear" things through their own mental filters, which can creep into text. Any writer bias aside, the sheer number of translations involved in getting ancient Hebrew/Greek to modern English make me think that each specific word perhaps shouldn't be taken too literally. (Translating modern languages to other modern languages is difficult enough).

From what I remember, homosexuality is very briefly mentioned in the Old Testament. There are a whole heap of other things that are forbidden in the Old Testament that no one really subscribes to today (or were obviously based on societal norms at the time the OT was written - spread of disease, food safety practices, etc.)  I'm not sure why homosexuality is singled out.

Disclaimer - I am neither Catholic nor atheist.

[ihearyou2]

Mar 14, 2013 19:23:37 GMT -5 midjd said:

I can understand how atheists have a hard time understanding this, but the idea behind religion is the belief in a higher power, and that power reveals itself in certain ways (like the bible).  And the bible very specifically says homosexuality is sinful, divorce is wrong, ect.  So the Pope is never going to unilaterally accept those things as dogma because the main relgious text they use specifically condemns them.  Of course, if you don't believe in God, then it makes no sense to do it that way and from the outside.  God doesn't change his mind on what's sinful and what's not just because many in the U.S or elsewhere thing it's okay.  In religion you don't just "make up the rules" as you go along.

But the Bible is the word of God - as recorded by man, right? Humans are pretty fallible creatures and tend to "hear" things through their own mental filters, which can creep into text. Any writer bias aside, the sheer number of translations involved in getting ancient Hebrew/Greek to modern English make me think that each specific word perhaps shouldn't be taken too literally. (Translating modern languages to other modern languages is difficult enough).

From what I remember, homosexuality is very briefly mentioned in the Old Testament. There are a whole heap of other things that are forbidden in the Old Testament that no one really subscribes to today (or were obviously based on societal norms at the time the OT was written - spread of disease, food safety practices, etc.)  I'm not sure why homosexuality is singled out.

Disclaimer - I am neither Catholic nor atheist.

The tradition is that the Bible was given to Moses who wrote it down word by word from God. From there it was transcribed in scrolls from one generation to another in Hebrew. The oldest extant scrolls going back thousands of years are the exact replicas of what they have today.

Translation is a worrisome thing whether in Greek or English and there are numerous issues with trying to take a word out of its mother tongue. The other rules in the Bible if they are not specific to Temple times are kept by Jews. Christians have the new covenant which allows the New to supercede the Old when there are contradictions.

The homosexuality thing to my way of thinking is mentioned in the Bible because there is a specific command to have children and raise the next generation as moral good people. There wasn't much as far as adoption by gay couples or the medical capabilities that we have today back then so I would think that gay people might get a pass even from the strictest theologians based on the context.

[Phoenix84]

"Aren't you going to address your atheist issue? Is it your position if you don't believe everything in the bible, and I do mean everything, then you are an atheist? Or if you are a follower of Islam, and you don't believe everything in the Koran, then you must be an atheist?"

I never had an "athiest issue."  You created said issue. 

I said that atheists might have a hard time understanding why those who follow a established religion don't just "change the rules" on the fly to suit what's "popular" or what "the majority of Americans think."  That does not mean if you disagree with those rules of organized religion, you are an athiest, it just means you're not part of the established religion.

People can believe whatever they want to believe, but if you go against what "the establishment" says, you're not part of that establishment, you're exercising faith in your own way.   

[Phoenix84]

"Faith is personal. Religion is not."

Precisely.  Being faithful and being part of a religion are not mutually exclusive.  You can faithful and believe in God (or Allah or whatever higher power) but not part of organized and established religion.  When you're part of a religion, you're getting together with people that (for the most part) have your same ideas about faith. 

You are correct in that what you believe is personal and no one else's business.  But you can't just call yourself a Muslim or a Catholic without subscribing to at least the major points of that religion.  

Well, I guess you can call yourself anything you want, but that doesn't make it so.   

[Phoenix84]

"But the Bible is the word of God - as recorded by man, right? Humans are pretty fallible creatures and tend to "hear" things through their own mental filters, which can creep into text. Any writer bias aside, the sheer number of translations involved in getting ancient Hebrew/Greek to modern English make me think that each specific word perhaps shouldn't be taken too literally. (Translating modern languages to other modern languages is difficult enough)."

Well, that all comes down to what you believe in how the bible was handed down to mankind.  Most established christian religions state that there is no error in the bible because God communicated with the guys who wrote the bible.  In other words, it's his will that it's written as such.

But again, if you believe in that or not is up to you.

"From what I remember, homosexuality is very briefly mentioned in the Old Testament. There are a whole heap of other things that are forbidden in the Old Testament that no one really subscribes to today (or were obviously based on societal norms at the time the OT was written - spread of disease, food safety practices, etc.) I'm not sure why homosexuality is singled out."

Well, it's often singled out because both sides of the debate single it out.  And no, it's not always the Christians that single it out.  The only reason I brought it up in the first place was because I saw an article on it.  And even then, I was only using it as one example in making a larger point.  But if you notice YOU contributed to the "singeling out" by honing in on that one example .  Why did you choose to do mention homosexuality and not my following example, divorce? 

You are correct that it's sad that it is often singled out.  And it's not the main message of the bible by any stretch.  Lots of people, including Christians and non Christians, like to see the leaves but not the forest. 

I agree with you MidwestJD, but I don't want to elaborate too much because it would drag this further into religious discussion moreso than it already has. 

[Tennesseer]

Mar 14, 2013 20:55:08 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"Aren't you going to address your atheist issue? Is it your position if you don't believe everything in the bible, and I do mean everything, then you are an atheist? Or if you are a follower of Islam, and you don't believe everything in the Koran, then you must be an atheist?"

I never had an "athiest issue."  You created said issue. 

I said that atheists might have a hard time understanding why those who follow a established religion don't just "change the rules" on the fly to suit what's "popular" or what "the majority of Americans think."  That does not mean if you disagree with those rules of organized religion, you are an athiest, it just means you're not part of the established religion.

People can believe whatever they want to believe, but if you go against what "the establishment" says, you're not part of that establishment, you're exercising faith in your own way.   

Why was atheism even brought up by you. The discussion wasn't about atheism.

[Tennesseer]

Well, I guess you can call yourself anything you want, but that doesn't make it so.

Who is judge of that? You?

[Phoenix84]

"Who is judge of that? You?"

Nope, the religion who has believed a certain way for thousands of years is the judge of that. 

[Tennesseer]

So I can believe I am Catholic and keep that information to myself.  And Catholicism will judge me.  Do I have that right?

[Phoenix84]

Mar 14, 2013 21:36:55 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

So I can believe I am Catholic and keep that information to myself.  And Catholicism will judge me.  Do I have that right?

No, you can believe you are catholic and keep that information to yourself.  But you'll confuse people if you claim you are catholic and but then turn around and say mass isn't important and the pope's office is not ordained by God. 

[Tennesseer]

But what if I say nothing to anyone?  Can Catholicism judge me?

[DVM gone riding]

Mar 13, 2013 18:01:41 GMT -5 ihearyou2 said:

He has only one lung.

Yeah but he has had only one lung for by far most of his life--that struck me as odd that they even mentioned it but stood out to me too.