Pope given last rites

[Agathon]

It is not. Sex is not a toy in catholic teaching. If You want to use anticonception, You apparently treat it as a toy, not as a means of procreation. That's why it can not be, according to some theologians, accepted.

Sorry... that's just stupid. Would you rather people used sex as a toy or that they died. That's the reality of AIDS. For most people abstinence is not an option, and lectures on what they may or may not do with their own bodies strike hollow.

But then again, this the church that thinks its wrong for people to have sex for reasons other than procreation, but goes all out to cover up pederastic priests.

Now what You're doing is not treating catholic teaching as a whole. Condemnation of anticonception makes sense in the light of overall catholic teaching on sexuality. If You want to question it, You have to question its entire form, not a part of it, while explanation for it lies elsewhere.

Of course I question the whole of it. It's idiotic.

You'd have to question why is sex something wrong, and it's the right question.
Anyway, your post was very unwise, biased, offensive and completely lacked tact.

And your posts lack anything remotely resembling intellect.

But then again, religion is about dogma and fanaticism, not rationality.

[Kassiopeia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm more interested in what name the new Pope shall adopt. I doubt he'll be another John Paul, as that would put him too much in the shadow of his predecessor. Gregory XVII seems a bit much. Another Pius, Benedict or Clement? Would Innocent be too self-aggrandizing today?

How about Lando II?

Hilarius II. (Kudos to Last Conformist)

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Well seeing as how the scriptural evidence seems to indicate those 2 didn't get on, that would be an interesting choice.

There's a strong feeling in the church that the next Pope needs to be a holy man, not a CEO or media star, someone who is in touch with the real needs of the faithful, especially in the Third World. This is what the Cardinals are saying too.

I would like to see this man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, made Pope, or someone like him

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=6893&eng=y

When he was made Cardinal he wore the old robes of his predecessor and had the money raised to celebrate his appointment distributed to the poor. A very humble and saintly man by all accounts.

I want to see the next Pope on a public bus

But fat chance he'll get chosen

Hmmmm, he does sound like da man...

[Ned]

A quick search indicates that no pope has used "Peter" as his name, save the first. Not one.

Paul, though, has become popular.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ned

H, you do not seem to understand the degree to which the American church was "behind" the scandal. The whole church is/was besmirched.

Perhaps American church. And even if it is true, it's not the official doctrine of the church, which makes a comparison simply rude and unappropriate.

Sorry... that's just stupid. Would you rather people used sex as a toy or that they died. That's the reality of AIDS. For most people abstinence is not an option, and lectures on what they may or may not do with their own bodies strike hollow.

I guess it'll take some time for You to grasp the idea that the church can not accept the idea of its flock commiting sin. It can not say: You sin... but please commit another sin which will assure You safety of commiting the first one"
Accepting the use of condoms (except for a case of a marriage in which one has AIDS) is not possible, as long as the condoms are a means of commiting sin. Because they are. People do not get diseases because the church does not accept condoms. They do because of their sexual practices.
Perhaps the church demands much from people (abstinency, that is). But if people could once listen to these commandements, they can do it today. And religion is about ideals, not about realism.

And the choice is not between treating sex as a toy and death. Because sex outside marriage is for CC treating sex as a toy. No sex - no risk of death.

Of course I question the whole of it. It's idiotic.

Why so?

And your posts lack anything remotely resembling intellect.

I lowered myself to your level hoping then You'll understand

But then again, religion is about dogma and fanaticism, not rationality.

Atheists are as fanatical, as can be seen on your example.

[Ned]

H, the American church has a hard time teaching abstinence when its own priests are lustful predators. To say that priests having sex, often with young boys and girls, is not the policy of the church ignores the fact that the leadership of the church condoned it, facilitated it and defended it with lawyers and denials for decades.

The Church's teachings on sex are riddled with hypocrisy and loopholes. That is one of the reasons why they are complete nonsense. For example, the Church will marry couples who cannot have kids. It does not require divorce or separation when one of the couple is infertile. It teaches the rythm method of avoiding pregnancy will denying the use of condoms. Married men can become priests but priests cannot marry!!!!!

The hypocrisy of it all was one of the leading factors in the protestant revolution. People should be allowed to follow Christ without also having to follow the crazy preachings of a morally backrupt, hypocritical Church.

If the next pope were intellectually honest, he would call a synod with the protestants to rid the Catholic Church of its hypocritical crust that has been calcifying for millenia.

[Ned]

I understand that Carter, denied access to the official US delegation to the funeral, has been invited by Fidel Castro to join Cuba's delegation.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Heresson

Atheists are as fanatical, as can be seen on your example.

Just because a few, like Aggie, are, doesn't mean we all are.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned

The hypocrisy of it all was one of the leading factors in the protestant revolution. People should be allowed to follow Christ without also having to follow the crazy preachings of a morally backrupt, hypocritical Church.

If the next pope were intellectually honest, he would call a synod with the protestants to rid the Catholic Church of its hypocritical crust that has been calcifying for millenia.

I AGREE WITH NED?!?

[Heresson]

H, the American church has a hard time teaching abstinence when its own priests are lustful predators.

All of them?
And it's not like someone bad can't say something right, especialy if He's just passing someone else's opinion.

To say that priests having sex, often with young boys and girls, is not the policy of the church ignores the fact that the leadership of the church condoned it, facilitated it and defended it with lawyers and denials for decades.

Did it "faciliate" it on purpose? Do You think RCC is a paedophilic mafia or whatever?
Every man should be able to defend his rights at court.
What do You expect? That the church should let the crowd tear the suspected apart before they're found guilty?

The Church's teachings on sex are riddled with hypocrisy and loopholes. That is one of the reasons why they are complete nonsense.
For example, the Church will marry couples who cannot have kids.

In fact, there's a rule which forbids marriage in such cases. I've seen some time ago a film about a Brazillian couple who could not get marriage in RCC because the guy was cripled and could not become a father.
It's not anything the church puts pressure on, though,
and I'm not complaining about it. Do You?

It does not require divorce or separation when one of the couple is infertile.

It does not require it, but it's one of few reasons for cancelling a marriage.

It teaches the rythm method of avoiding pregnancy will denying the use of condoms.

that's the only point of yours with some validity, but again this stance, while I disagree with it, can be defended. God gave us time in which we can have sex without risk of pregnancy, and so we can use it. A condom is lack of respect for the natural rythm God's chosen for us.

Married men can become priests but priests cannot marry!!!!!

At least in the past the situation was that a married guy could become a priest, but He had to resign of sexual activities. It's not inconsistent anyway.

The hypocrisy of it all was one of the leading factors in the protestant revolution.

yes, hypocrisy of Luther and others, though personal ambitions, greed of princes and kings wishing to take posessions of the church and subdue the church, not to mention lust of Henry VIII (and Luther as well) were more important.

People should be allowed to follow Christ without also having to follow the crazy preachings of a morally backrupt, hypocritical Church.

I guess everything You disagree with or are not able to understand is crazy.
Hypocritical? Catholics were and are dieing, also due to protestant persecutions, for their convictions.
Morally bankrupt? As if. RCC had, has and will have many great personalities that can be example for us.

If the next pope were intellectually honest, he would call a synod with the protestants to rid the Catholic Church of its hypocritical crust that has been calcifying for millenia.

So only protestants are intellectually honest.
Your bias and lack of respect for different opinions amaze me. While I disagree with some teachings of RCC,
I will always defend them against simple and unfair judgements.
Apolyton is doing its best to make a loyal Roman Catholic out of me, it seems.
When I came here, I was almost atheist.

I AGREE WITH NED?!?

Repent that sin.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Heresson

Apolyton is doing its best to make a loyal Roman Catholic out of me, it seems.
When I came here, I was almost atheist.

I know the feeling. I was moderate and felt the socialists had a few good ideas.

[Drake Tungsten]

The moonbats do get to you, don't they?

[Heresson]

Calm down and stop seeing things

[Agathon]

Hey atheists are fanatics!!!!

Compare...

(1) Man who asserts that it is reasonable to believe that there is a purple space goat living on the other side of the moon, and refuses to concede otherwise in spite of there being absolutely no proof or even evidence pointing to the relative likelihood of such a creature's existence.

with

(2) Man who, in the absence of proof or any evidence pointing to the relative likelihood of such a creature's existence, claims that it is irrational to believe in a purple space goat living on the moon.

Now replace "Purple space goat living on the moon" with "God" and it is so obvious that Man (2) must be a mindless fanatic if Man (1) is.

[Alexander's Horse]

the point you miss is God is real and present to those who believe