Conclave

[Alexander's Horse]

ah right - Western Europe is a hot spot, nothing more.

And there are interpretations of the decline which have nothing to do with the role of the Pope.

The next Pope will need to address falling church attendances. That was my point.

[Hueij]

And there are interpretations of the decline which have nothing to do with the role of the Pope.

Maybe... But over here we think otherwise. You should read some of the commentaries in our papers about the role of JP2. The initial "nothing bad about the dead" is over and reflection has started.

Not that JP2 is the only one to blame, it started with Paul VI.

[Alexander's Horse]

my view is that it doesn't have to be like this

Paul VI has a lot to answer for too - the ongoing scandal over humanae vitae - which was changed at the last minute being exhibit A.

[Brent]

To those of you who believe a decline in the RCC means something, I suppose you also believe the increase in my religion means something? My point here is not that either one means anything, but that maybe as far as you should be concerned neither does?

How long ago was Paul VI?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
ah right - Western Europe is a hot spot, nothing more.

And there are interpretations of the decline which have nothing to do with the role of the Pope.

The next Pope will need to address falling church attendances. That was my point.

But church attendance has been falling in Europe for all denominations for decades anyway. Is the Pope responsible for falling attendance in the Church of England too?
In South America the Roman Catholic Church is being beset by aggressive protestant evangelists, this too began long before John Paul II began his reign. It's more a function of US influence keeping the Latin American governments from harrassing American missionaries. In North America, Asia and Africa the Roman Catholic Church is growing.

[DanS]

Apparently, you're missing his point too, Strangelove.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Paul also says,

1 Cor 7:32-4

"I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs–how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world–how he can please his wife– and his interests are divided."

Wasn't Paul heavily influenced by a particularly misogynistic brand of Greek philosophy? Women were inferior, borderline evil. Sex in itself is bad. Must keep the body entirely pure.

AFAIR, Paul said that no good Christians should marry. The only reason to marry was if you could not possibly control your desires, and it was better to take a wife than to be consumed by passion(1 Cor. 7:9) Didn't he also believe that Christ was returning soon, so reproduction wasn't necessary?

[Brent]

In my denomination, in some countries of Europe attendance may be going up and down a little bit, but over all it is growing there, mainly in the east and south. And it certainly hasn't been falling for decades.

I imagine South Americans who convert to my religion (not protestant, but restorationist) are largely ones who weren't very strong in Catholicism anyway, but I'm not sure.

[Wycoff]

Paul also said "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1)

[Brent]

Did not Paul say Neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord? If he didn't believe in reproduction, he apparantly didn't believe in Genesis.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wasn't Paul heavily influenced by a particularly misogynistic brand of Greek philosophy? Women were inferior, borderline evil. Sex in itself is bad. Must keep the body entirely pure.

Yet he says, just a little further down, that it is better to marry than to burn.

You can go on and on, but in the end, he affirms both the married state, and the unmarried state.

[Wycoff]

Here's an interesting article that I just found. What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14299.html

[Ben Kenobi]

I suggest you also look a little more closely at this particular bishop.

Recall this, also what Paul says:

Romans 1:24-7

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


We are always more inclined to look askance of our own sins, rather than the sins of others. That Paul so openly condemns these acts as perversion, is more evidence against this speculation that Paul had any of these desires.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS
Apparently, you're missing his point too, Strangelove.

The Pope has forbidden forming alliances for conclave

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We are always more inclined to look askance of our own sins, rather than the sins of others. That Paul so openly condemns these acts as perversion, is more evidence against this speculation that Paul had any of these desires.

This guy is suggesting that Paul was a stereotypical self-loathing homosexual, like the marine in American Beauty. No saying that I believe this, but I did find it interesting that someone else thought this up (and it would prove that Paul was Greek influenced )