A New Pope For All, And To All A Good Night
While not a Roman Catholic, my mother grew up as one (effectively rearing me with the hand-me-downs of Catholic Guilt.) Everyone at work in this largely Catholic city is eagerly following breaking news. You might want to read what followers of the BBC have to say here.
I'm not a Catholic but I think the conclave has made a huge mistake. The church needed someone to bring it back to life[,] not an arch conservative. This will effectively spell the end of Roman Catholicism in our life time.
Simon S, London
I submitted a comment saying I hope he stays in office only a short time. (He is, after all, 78. How long can he last?) The next pope should be from Africa or Latin America.
Should, that is, not will.
Labels: Chicago
posted by Theresa @ 4/19/2005 12:19:00 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
Wow. How narrow minded we are in the west. Hate to break it to "simon s." and the rest of the Americans / Western Europeans, but the majority of Catholics in the world don't care what you think.
The center of the Roman Catholic Church has shifted. While the English may want a more liberal church, fortunately our Cardinals have elected a man who will be able to bring the church back to its roots. Pope Benedict XVI is a man who will keep strong the Church's Doctrine, and accurately reflect the more conservative beliefs of the South, where the population of Catholics is rising exponentially.
Finally, For anyone to suggest that we would be better off if the Pope (or any other of the world's great spiritual leaders), would die, and leave office quickly, is not only insulting to the 1 Billion Catholics in the world, but to humanity in general.
Existimatio, a piece of advice for you: Sometimes the wisest person is not the one who speaks the most, speaks the loudest, or even the one that follows the crowd. The wise person is he who speaks with, thoughtfulness, intelligence, and experience.
more conservative beliefs of the South, where the population of Catholics is rising exponentially.
The population of Catholics is rising exponetially in the southern hemisphere because the population in general is rising rapidly there. Because they don't use condoms. No Catholics using condoms=more Catholics. Clever little racket the Vatican has going there isn't it? Pity that hunger and AIDS are also growing exponetially too, but hey, more souls for Christ.
so you are saying that people who have such strong catholic beliefs that they aren't using condoms, are not so catholic that they are having sex outside of marriage. sounds like a vatican conspiracy to me... or you are just dumb.
Ah, I do relish a good online sparring match, haven't had one in a while, thanks to Theresa for inadvertently hosting it.
For clarification purposes, I am the second "anonymous", or as I shall heretofore be known, Rory the Magnificent. For further clarification, I will assume you meant "are not so Catholic that they are *refraining* from sex outside of marriage" rather than what you said, which was the opposite.
I will further say "Whaaaa?" If you'll carefully re-read my post up there (take as much time as you want, I know there are like, seventy words there)you will discover fuck-all references to sex outside of marriage, I'm talking about birth control. Which is, you know, something you can use whether you're married or not, or so I'm given to understand, never having been married myself but I have it on good authority. I'm talking about exploding populations that are born into poverty in developing nations that can't sustain them, and I'm sorry to break it to you, but out of control populations can in fact be born to married people, in the highly traditionalistic societies of the Third World, they usually are. You seem to be slightly confused about the facts of life, see being married doesn't mean you don't have to use birth control anymore...The Catholic Church, with its sometimes allies in the Protestant Christian Right and cozy local dictatorships, has prevented anything other than abstinence only sex ed from reaching huge numbers of starving, illiterate people in the developing world. That worthless bint Mother Theresa was a classic exemplar of the "no condoms for you" school of spiritual leadership. Ever hear of the "global gag order" controversies at the UN mayhaps? You seem to be coming from a contemporary Western perspective of looking at Catholicism as if its a choice that free people can make. Trust me, in some places, that ain't the case, my ancestral homeland of Ireland was one of them until not too long ago. The Church uses totalitarian methods of coercion when and where it can. When you've immersed yourself in some knowledge about some things, not the least among them basic mammalian biology, I would be happy to revisit the question of precisely who around here is dumb.
Cheers,
Rory
Now, now, whoever you are, let's all play nice. And sign our names at the end of our posts. Thanks to Rory for setting the example
I must say I'm rather taken aback that this, out of all my writings, should have generated more comments than all others combined. (What, no one has anything to say about my multicultural weekend? I'm shocked!)
Of course people's emotions run high when discussing religion--especially relatively orthodox ones. I'd like to see anyone getting this worked up over Methodism or Lutheranism! (Caveat: I do realise that there are more Catholics than those two denominations, but hope you can see the point. People don't argue as much about Seventh-Day Adventists or Buddhists or animists.)
To defend my original post: I do hope this Pope doesn't stay in power long--just as everyone at the Vatican does. Why else did they choose an elderly man to be pope? Why, because they don't want another John Paul II, in for 30 years! The office of the pope has traditionally been held for relatively short periods. It's good that way, to have one of the most powerful offices in the world get some new blood in every now and then. Pope Benedict XVI is being referred to as a "transitional pope" because he will not be in office very long. We know it; he knows it. It's self apparent, and no Catholic should delude themselves into thinking otherwise. It's not an insult to Catholics to say (or hope) he won't be pope long, because he won't. That's a fact of his age--and one of the reasons he was elected over the younger cardinals.
As for the last rather vitrolic comment: Rory, I think that Anonymous was making sense. It is possible to be a "good" Catholic by not using condoms and at the same time be a "bad" Catholic by having pre-marital or extra-marital sex. In fact, even in our relatively enlightend society I know a Catholic girl, just beginning to sleep with her boyfriend, who took some hard convincing before she would use birth control. For some reason she thought it would be worse of her to use condoms than to have pre-marital sex. Crazy, I know, but I'm sure there are many who do the same.
And let's not forget than in many countries obtaining even condoms is nigh impossible. So yes, as Africa and its rampant AIDS epidemic shows, it is very much possible to have pre-martial or extra-martial sex like bad little Catholics, while being good little Catholics by not using birth control. Whether or not that is their choice is irrelevant to the Catholic church.
What the Catholic Church needs to decide is which is better: to have fewer Catholics not living in dire poverty and being born with HIV, or millions of Catholics in the Southern Hemisphere suffering from AIDs and living on $1 a day?
I know what I'd choose if I were them. But I'm not, and thankfully I'm not Catholic, either.
IN response to Rory:
1) what is a "fuck-all reference"
2) no, i do mean "not so catholic that they are having sex outside of marriage". What you said is the opposite. I know that those compound sentences can be tricky to read, but take your time.
What you said is that Catholics are expected to have sex outside of marriage. If i had said that, that would defeat the whole point of my comment... once again, read a bit slower, and look up the big words.
3) you brought up AIDs and Hunger. Condom use in marriage, and outside of marriage is not a product of the catholic church.
Condom use/non-use is a cultural issue, stemming from the various social beliefs and stigmas of the many African ethnicities. (because that is apparently who we are talking about right now, unless there is a huge population / AIDs explosion in South America). While, you might be correct to argue that the catholic church could promote condom use, you could also argue they could promote castration as well.
I think what you meant to say, is that while the Catholic church is not the cause of the lack of condom use, they have not been the solution to making condom use more widespread.
If you need more information on the social stigma of the condom and its use in sub-Saharan Africa, the United Nations as well as many reputable NGOs have published numerous studies, that while very detailed and data filled, may be simple enough for even you to understand. While you are reading, note that no where do the reports say that the catholic church is the cause of the spread of AIDS or the explosion in the population.
4) Global Gag Order. What a nice pop-culture term. However, abortion is a whole other topic for a new thread, but I'll briefly address it.
I know, I'm just a horrible right-winger who thinks that people should be responsible for the choices they make. Damn me and my kind. Thinking that if you want to avoid pregnancy, that you should avoid having sex. And that if you do make the choice to have sex (see i'm pro choice too), and get pregnant, killing the fetus (and taking away its choice) shouldn't be an option.
Also, because I know if I don't mention this, you will probably think the opposite: your "Gag order" does not discourage the use of condoms, just the use of abortion as a birth control method.
5) I really don't know what your point was about Ireland, so I can't respond, but that's another complex issue, and more importantly, separate from this one.
6) Theresa, nice response. I'm glad you took the time to read my post, and the big sentences didn't cause confusion. However, I would like to address one point. Condoms are not impossible to come by in Africa. Even in those states where the percentage of those infected with AIDS is the highest, it is very possible to get a condom. That is just a fact. The African governments are promoting condoms and educating the public about their use.
It is back to the basic cultural beliefs about condoms and AIDS that are keeping the use of condoms at such a low rate. (the availability of AIDS drugs, is a whole different story). While the catholic church does have many financial resources, so do Nation-States, NGOs, and many of the worlds other major religions.
7) you may just call me joe.
I would just like to address the point originally made by Theresa regarding the projected tenure of Pope Benedict XVI.
It is reasonable to observe his age and note it's likely he won't live for a very long time. However, since we only get a new pope after the current one dies I feel it is improper to "hope" he isn't pope for long. I believe it's bad form to wish a short life span on anyone.
Forever,
Chris
The man is 78. Come into the modern world. It may not be likely given his past health, but not unreasonable to think that this pope might live another 20 years. The question becomes then what happens to the Church when the pope is unwell and infirm for years and years and years. A leaderless Church. A far worse case than a leader that is not liked by this group or that. At some point, the Church must face this issue.
1) what is a "fuck-all reference"
“Fuck-all” is a British slang term meaning “no” or “nothing”. I made “fuck all” references to marriage in my first post. It was in fact the main crux of my post, which you seem to have missed entirely, I was talking about birth control, and said absolutely nothing about sex outside of marriage. My post was mostly about the fact that you hilariously don’t seem to be aware that marriage does not guarantee protection from pregnancy, even more hilariously, you still don’t! Note, I am saying “seem”, I trust that you are an adult and you understand how reproduction works. But your awkward writing makes it appear that you don’t.
2) no, i do mean "not so catholic that they are having sex outside of marriage". What you said is the opposite. I know that those compound sentences can be tricky to read, but take your time.
2) Well, they’re tricky to read mostly because they’re incoherent. “not so catholic that they are having sex outside of marriage” implies that the Church sanctions and actively encourages sex outside of marriage which it of course doesn’t. So basically…what on earth are you saying?
What you said is that Catholics are expected to have sex outside of marriage. If i had said that, that would defeat the whole point of my comment... once again, read a bit slower, and look up the big words.
No, I didn’t say that at all. The extent to which I did not say that is staggering. You are the one who said that. Once again, I said nothing about marriage, you are the one who said that. I made an inference based on the awkward mess that you typed, that you meant to critique the alleged hypocrisy of people adhering to the Church’s anti-birth control teachings but still engage in non-marital sexual relations, which would indeed be the opposite of “not so catholic that they are having sex outside of marriage” but I guess I could be wrong. Explain it to me, dude, I’m sure you will.
3) you brought up AIDs and Hunger. Condom use in marriage, and outside of marriage is not a product of the catholic church.
Um, okay, I will stipulate that “condom use in marriage, and outside of marriage is not a product of the catholic church”. Don’t think I ever said it was. I was saying that the Church’s opposition to condom use under any circumstances has an adverse effect on the fight against AIDS and hunger.
Condom use/non-use is a cultural issue, stemming from the various social beliefs and stigmas of the many African ethnicities. (because that is apparently who we are talking about right now, unless there is a huge population / AIDs explosion in South America).
No, we’re talking about Africa, Asia and the Indian subcontinent. AIDS is on the rise in all those places. Africa’s the most egregious example sure, but it’s spreading. India is getting really bad. South America is in fact overpopulated and largely underprivileged, not sure what the AIDS statistics are there but it’s certainly there, and I’ll bet my immortal soul that there would be a lot less of it there were it not for people adhering to Catholic teachings. And it took Africa a *long* time to get where it is. People think AIDS started in the 1980’s because that’s when it was first diagnosed. It didn’t. It’s been in Africa since at least the sixties. It’s on the rise in many places and no one currently inhabiting this planet can afford to adopt an attitude of complacency about it.
Yes, I am aware of non-Catholic resistance to condom use in Africa. I never said the Church was solely responsible for the problem, but it’s contributing to it.
While, you might be correct to argue that the catholic church could promote condom use, you could also argue they could promote castration as well.
I…guess. Except condom use is a perfectly sensible thing to advocate and castration is not. Neither is celibacy. Yeah I know “people should be responsible for their own actions” bla bla… Sexual activity is part of human nature, it’s as natural as eating or breathing, for some of us anyway. But the fact is, the Church thinks sex is evil because of the deep, deep neuroses of one Saul of Tarsus and the belief that there is an all powerful man in the sky who will become very cross with us if we engage in certain kinds of sexual activity that He does not approve of i.e. most.
You might say (you’ve put plenty of words in my mouth so I’ll follow suit) that non-monogamous sexual activity (not that monogamy on an individual’s part has ever guaranteed anything, it takes two to tango) is inherently dangerous. It can give you diseases that will kill you. So can not washing your hands. Condoms are a lot like washing your hands. The Church’s policies on sex are a lot like going around and saying “Don’t wash your hands. Don’t eat or go to the bathroom either.” People won’t stop eating or going to the bathroom. But they might stop washing their hands.
I think what you meant to say, is that while the Catholic church is not the cause of the lack of condom use, they have not been the solution to making condom use more widespread.
No, they are actively part of the cause. They’re not *the* cause but they’re part of it.
If you need more information on the social stigma of the condom and its use in sub-Saharan Africa, the United Nations as well as many reputable NGOs have published numerous studies, that while very detailed and data filled, may be simple enough for even you to understand. While you are reading, note that no where do the reports say that the catholic church is the cause of the spread of AIDS or the explosion in the population.
And the UN and NGO studies omitting references to the Church has nothing to do with politics of course. Look, I’m bloody well aware of the “social stigma” about condoms in Africa. I’m aware there are insane, horrific superstitions about how sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. The Church obviously isn’t responsible for those, but the Church is hurting the situation by injecting it’s own superstitions into it. And that’s all they are, superstitions.
3)
4) Global Gag Order. What a nice pop-culture term. However, abortion is a whole other topic for a new thread, but I'll briefly address it.
I know, I'm just a horrible right-winger who thinks that people should be responsible for the choices they make. Damn me and my kind. Thinking that if you want to avoid pregnancy, that you should avoid having sex. And that if you do make the choice to have sex (see i'm pro choice too), and get pregnant, killing the fetus (and taking away its choice) shouldn't be an option.
I agree people should be responsible for their own actions, but we’re talking about places where poverty, violence, illiteracy, misinformation and superstition (Christian and non-Christian) are very hard to combat. I assume from your formulation above, that you are in favor of abortion rights for rape victims. If you don’t like abortion in any part of the world, the answer is sex education, not abstinence advocacy, because the latter is rooted in pure fantasy.
4) Also, because I know if I don't mention this, you will probably think the opposite: your "Gag order" does not discourage the use of condoms, just the use of abortion as a birth control method.
I’m talking about all the insane policies fundamentalist or ultra-orthodox Christianity (and specifically the Catholic Church) has regarding human reproduction, don’t blame me for the fact that there are multiple lunacies to cover. I did place my “gag order” reference haphazardly, just below a condom reference, but I’m hardly going to apologize to the likes of *you* for slightly sloppy writing.
5) I really don't know what your point was about Ireland, so I can't respond, but that's another complex issue, and more importantly, separate from this one.
Not to me. How is it separate? I’m talking about Catholic totalitarianism. You think religion is a choice. It isn’t everywhere. People are compelled by the bonds of ruthless, dictatorial tradition. Not everybody enjoys the kind of freedom we have in North America.
6) Theresa, nice response. I'm glad you took the time to read my post, and the big sentences didn't cause confusion.
You’re not talking to me here, but I’d like to interject that your sentences ain’t that big bub, just poorly constructed.
And not to speak for her or drag her into it but she told me that initially she *was* confused.
Look, we have a mutual friend so I don’t want to be mean and petty anymore (though it is ever so much fun) I think you’re an intelligent person, but you don’t write very well. Theresa informs me you’re a lawyer, you really ought to be better with the written word than you are…oh consarn it I’m back to being mean and petty again, guess I can’t really help it. You started it by calling me “dumb” which I’m not inclined to let roll off my shoulders and you have continued it by implying that sentences like
“so you are saying that people who have such strong catholic beliefs that they aren't using condoms, are not so catholic that they are having sex outside of marriage”
are simply too sophisticated for me as opposed to just nonsensical.
-Rory
I guess you have shown the world just how smart you are. You Win. Yay for Rory.
Best of Luck,
Joe
I guess you have shown the world just how smart you are. You Win. Yay for Rory.
Best of Luck,
Joe
That's more or less how I look at it, yes.
-Rory
Okay, Joe and Rory, enough said. I think we can all agree to disagree (and that if you come to my party in a few weeks, we can stagger your arrivals so you never have to meet. But just in case, please pick pseudonyms--or, if you will, noms de plume to use for the evening).
I hope everyone had at least a modicum of fun flaming one another (or reading along at home). Please continue to comment on future posts!
As an outsider who's been watching this entirely amusing battle of wits, I must say that I see you on the losing side Rory. Being an Irish-Catholic myself (not like it matters, but since you seem to think it's important to bring up, I'll do the same) I feel there is a constant struggle between being a good Catholic and following cannon law to the fullest, and also trying to be a citizen of the world in 2005.
I go to weekly mass. I have faith in God. But I'm also pro-choice, believe that people should be able to marry anyone they love, and have many other left-wing beliefs that would probably make my priest pale. It is a struggle, a balance that each individual has to figure out for themselves to determine how they want the scale to tip.
Some believe that the church is outdated, and has no place in our current life. I believe that is exactly why the church is so important. It's the high moral standard to have as a benchmark. If the bar weren’t raised so high, how much farther would we fall? The lower the bar inches down, the easier it is for people to explain away any choices they make that disagree with canon law.
We are human and we fall short. That is a staple of the church, we are fallible, and the church accepts this and loves us anyway. We can only attempt to live the best life we can, and trust that mistakes we make will be forgiven. I know I have done many things that probably put me in the "Bad Catholic" category. But that does not mean that I have given up on the church, I know she won’t give up on me.
I have many issues with the church and I don't believe in many of the teachings. This is my choice. As a human being with free will, I get to choose what I do and don't believe. I get to make the choice to believe that our sexuality (be it heterosexual or homosexual) is as innate to our body as eye color. I get to choose to have sex before I'm married. I get to choose to use condoms. The church may tell me that something I'm doing or a belief I have is wrong, but I get to choose to ignore them, just as we ignore much of the advice our parents give us growing up. I see the church as the ultimate parent, they lay down rules that are in our best interest, and they lead us in the right direction. (It's not a coincidence that a priest is called "Father.") After some time they have to let us go and hope we make the right choices, knowing full well that we'll ignore certain things and make mistakes. And as a loving parent would, they forgive us, and tell us it's ok, and do better next time. This is how I choose to see things.
It's all up for debate, and I just want to remind everyone that faith is an incredibly personal issue, and attacking anyone because of their beliefs or lack there of is quite insensitive. I only point out Rory's shortcomings because he's gone on the offensive to pick apart issues that have nothing to do with the actual body of this thread. We're here to discuss the church, and its relevance in our modern world. Using this as a forum for correcting grammar or sentence structure is off base.
-M
PS, Apparently it was more important to "win" your battle with Joe than it was to make sense. The original meaning of Theresa's post was lost through your point-for-point rebuttals. However, since you have a need to be right, I just thought I'd let you know that this was worded correctly the first time, and the fact that you've repeatedly tried to twist it around just discredits you that much more:
“so you are saying that people who have such strong catholic beliefs that they aren't using condoms, are not so catholic that they are having sex outside of marriage”
Maybe if it's stated a different way you'll understand. How about "I'm very tired, but I'm not so tired that I'm going to go to bed now." I'm proclaiming myself as tired, but I'm doing something that is counterintuitive to my current state. Instead of going to bed like a tired person would do, I'm resisting. IE: I'm a catholic, but I'm not SO catholic that I'll still have sex outside of marriage." The phrase "not so catholic" means that they're claming to be a catholic, but they can't be "THAT" catholic, or they would not have sex out of marriage. Try reading it out as if someone said it. It makes sense.
Now go ahead and let me have it. I've put in my two cents, and I'm done. Have fun ripping each of my sentences apart and twisting them to fit your agenda.
You "see" me as being on the losing side, Meghan? Are you saying absolute truth doesn't exist? Your Church would be ashamed.
I haven't responded to you because I'm tired of this, I expect Joe was too which is why he stopped but some bizare sense of honor compels me to answer her slanders. First, I wasn't trying to harp on Joe's grammar, I was trying to get him to make some goddamn sense. Your sleep analogy didn't work, I don't feel like demonstrating why, but re-read it again. My second post tried to clarify what he meant (and I was kind enough to rephrase it for him) and he responded by insulting me.
I wasn't changing the subject from Theresa's post, she posted about the new pope, someone else posted about the growing populations, I made a crack about the relationship between population growth and it mushroomed from there. It's called the natural flow of conversation.
Your "raising the bar" notion of striving to be a better person is all well and good, the problem is that Catholic morality is not merely "outdated" it is wrong. It is barbaric and evil and it should be called such by thinking persons. To call morally neutral behavior such as homosexual relations "evil" is in and of itself evil, and it must be fought.
You shouldn't feel bad for deviating from doctrine, you should feel good about it because the doctrine is wrong.
See, I believe in absolute truth too, I just see absolute truth in a different way than the superstitious adherents of the Abrahamic religions do. That is to say, I am right and they are wrong.
I don't "need" to be right,I just am. It's often a burden really.
-Rory
I'm glad you got to have your fun and rip apart my sentences, just as I predicted. I'm not going to give you the pleasure of continuing this volley, I choose not to have discourse with people who have no idea what they're talking about. I have my beliefs, you have yours, and I guess it's too much for me to ask you to respect that.
Just remember:
"Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks your and asshole."
If by picking apart your sentences, you mean engaging your ideas (all of which I understand perfectly) then yes, that's what I did.
It hasn't been a pleasure for me at all, I did it out of compulsion and a misguided sense of honor not fun.
"Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks your and asshole."
The timestamps indicate you took ten minutes to add that little zinger.
Look, you and Joe are the ones who came at me with a hostile tone. Remarkably few people I encounter in everyday social relations seem to think I'm an asshole, actually. Internetland tends to exacerbate our more hostile traits, I suspect we'd all be nicer if we conducted this conversation in person. I'm sure I've come off much more anti-Catholic than I in fact am. There are priests I've known in my life whose wisdom far exceeds that of the higher levels of the hierarchy. But sorry, I don't respect the beliefs of anyone who makes apologies for those who cause human suffering. What I find absurd is that you talk about your liberal beliefs but you characterize it as a spiritual "struggle" and a "fall" from sort of ideal rather than a perfectly reasonable way to see the world. Whatever, I'm sure you'd just rip *my* sentences apart.
I'm glad this is over.
-Rory
Okay, enough. As moderator/owner of this blog I hereby declare the endless argument over religion over. While it was exciting at the beginning (and even had its humorous moments), this kind of discussion is futile.
All of you are wonderful people with divers opinions--let's just leave it at that. As soon as possible I'll post some pretty pictures or talk about my schedule again, per usual, and all will be back to normal.
But now that everyone realises how easy it is to post, please keep that in mind. It's great to know people are reading this in different cities and states (and, I daresay, countries).
No hard feelings, right? Righ?
Post a Comment
<< Home