Pope gives poor sinners a second chance

[Boris Godunov]

Whether or not this move is perfectly in line with RCC policy, it's certainly a terrible PR move that will just hasten the church's circle 'round the drain of irrelevancy.

[Elok]

I doubt that, Boris. Dry is just about the last person I'd accuse of being a booster for Xianity, and he's said just that only conservative Catholicism is thriving in Europe. Similarly, Evangelicals are booming in America while more liberal denominations languish. Even the Mormons are doing pretty good. I think Orthodoxy would be thriving if we weren't so utterly disorganized. I'd say the conservative element in religion is coming back, like it or not.

[Boris Godunov]

Uh, Dry said: "The RCC is shrinking in numbers, except in those ultra-conservative communities."

That's precisely my point. Sure, troglodytes who are racist/homophonic will still flock to a religion that caters to their cretinous views. But most people are heading away from the RCC, not towards it. If the RCC becomes a bastion of the most backwards and intolerant segments of society and drives out moderates and liberals, then it will indeed become irrelevant.

[Elok]

Uh, Dry said: "The RCC is shrinking in numbers, except in those ultra-conservative communities."

That's precisely my point. Sure, troglodytes who are racist/homophonic will still flock to a religion that caters to their cretinous views. But most people are heading away from the RCC, not towards it. If the RCC becomes a bastion of the most backwards and intolerant segments of society and drives out moderates and liberals, then it will indeed become irrelevant.

I hate homophonic people too. They all sound the same.

Anyway, what you just said would seem to indicate an unwarranted optimism. Stupid and ignorant people have become marginalized in the past (SEE: Klan, Ku Klux), but they've also shown remarkable tenacity (our outgoing president comes to mind, though like most Americans I hardly bother with Europolitics so I can't think of a relevant example), and times of turmoil favor the dumb and mean. The times ahead don't look tranquil.

[Alinestra Covelia]

This is what my FF tabbed browser looks like and I thought it was funny.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's precisely my point. Sure, troglodytes who are racist/homophonic will still flock to a religion that caters to their cretinous views. But most people are heading away from the RCC, not towards it. If the RCC becomes a bastion of the most backwards and intolerant segments of society and drives out moderates and liberals, then it will indeed become irrelevant.

It's a reaction to the Londonistan folks.

Really the choices in Europe are simple.

1. Islam
2. Christianity
3. Secular Atheism.

3 isn't doing very well even as it appears to be the dominant philosophy because it doesn't offer a challenge to Islam. 2 does. I also think 2 is far better for the West, then 1, and I'm sure you think the same as well Boris.

[Elok]

Well, secular atheism at least beats nonsecular atheism. I never really got that.

[Q Classic]

Well, with Atheism, you have Dawkinsite Atheism, Communist Atheism, Atheist Science, Athescientology, Flying Spaghetti Atheism, Roman Atheism...

[Traianvs]

Ben, you have no idea what you're talking about. Islam is not taking over Europe. Sure enough, there's plenty of muslim immigrants over here, but the rest of us won't adopt islam. As a matter of fact many people have seen though the lies of christianity and belief in general, so they won't adopt islam just for the sake of it.

If you want to go back to the crusades and jihads, clashes between christianity and islam then fine. But do it in your own backwards continent, cause we'll have none of it here. We're sick and tired of the pointless enmity; it's caused us enough grief in the past already.

[Elok]

Ben, you have no idea what you're talking about. Islam is not taking over Europe. Sure enough, there's plenty of muslim immigrants over here, but the rest of us won't adopt islam. As a matter of fact many people have seen though the lies of christianity and belief in general, so they won't adopt islam just for the sake of it.

If you want to go back to the crusades and jihads, clashes between christianity and islam then fine. But do it in your own backwards continent, cause we'll have none of it here. We're sick and tired of the pointless enmity; it's caused us enough grief in the past already.

?? We're not the ones who publish Muhammad cartoons and make anti-Islam films that get their directors assassinated. Nor do Muslim youth riot in our streets every summer, as they do in Paris (we don't even have enough angry, idle Muslims to riot in the first place). The war in Afghanistan is a long, drawn-out retaliation for a specific act of war, and Iraq was Dubya's baby (and Cheney's, and Rumsfeld's, et cetera). Not that we aren't still the Great Satan, but we seem much less likely to be dragged into further clashes of civilizations and suchlike than you, now that Obama's in charge.

[Dry]

Uh, Dry said: "The RCC is shrinking in numbers, except in those ultra-conservative communities."

To be more specific on this, i should say that less and less people go to church by tradition, or because they don't know better, or because it was socialy needed.
In the past, those who didn't know, or those who didn't ask themselves the question, were catholic by tradition, for social convenience. All those are gone. They now call themselves agnostics or non-believers, but they are still the same:they do not care. The difference is they changed their name and do not [need to] go to church anymore.
Christianity is no more trendy and only those truely convinced call themselves catholic and go to church.
Among these, there is the ordinary ones, not fanatics, genuingly and honestly practising their faith. Their number is probably also diminishing. They are usually the older ones. Among the young ones, some leave, some come, but because the majority are older people, they are 'naturally' less and less.
The only one who are rising in number, and are the younger ones, are the more radicals. They argue the church loses her followers because she has become too liberal, too blended, too gentle. They want the church to be again an authority, that obedience is virtue, that knowledge and understanding are hindrance to the faith,...
That God commands, the pope is his representative, the priests performs the cult and the followers, the flock are allowed to watch, but not to participate, and they need to follow without arguing.

To give an example: there is a problem of recruiting priests. More and more communities in Belgium have African priests. No european wants to become a priest (celibacy?) and the church needs to 'import' priests from Africa.
And the exception, is again the adepts of Mgr Lefebvre. His schools for priests are full (that may be only 8 or 10, but compared to the 5 or 10 on the other side, that's a lot). And again, they are the new generation.
The churches are full only when traditional masses are performed.

Now, this does not mean they are any close to be the majority, but they begin to have some weight in the equation. I have no idea of the percentage, but if they reach 5% of the catholics, they cannot be ignored... or left outside.

[BeBMan]

Some thoughts:

Ben's "choice" ist stupid. It rests on the assumption that you can only have one of the three, but that hasn't much to do with reality.

First, I'd say religion is not so unimportant in Europe as some describe it here. The most secular Euro countries are some of the western part, but if you look to Poland, Ireland or much of southern Europe then religion is quite strong there.

Even in the more secular states religion does not seem irrelevant at all. I can mainly speak for Germany, but secularism here doesn't mean that religion doesn't exist, or that it plays no role. I just remember what kind of media hype the "new pope is a German" thing has been here. Religious guys are always actors in matters of public interest here, thing is they don't have the exclusive dominance in that area (and that's how things work in an open pluralistic society). But nonetheless, often they're are seen or treated as moral authorities. One of the major parties here (Merkel's CDU) still defines itself as Christian. And while its politics doesn't make it an outright "religious" party denominational (is that the right expression?) orientations aren't that unimportant there.

Secondly, why is this always discussed as some good (religion) vs. bad (secular) (or, depending on your POV vice versa) thing? That's completely absurd. Secularism means first to keep religion out of practial politics, and that doesn't strike me as a bad thing, for neither politics nor religion. OTOH religion isn't dead here, but it has become a mostly private matter, no more, no less.

[Straybow]

Nazinger had the opportunity - or should I say a good excuse - to behave morally and keep them (or at least one of them) outside the church, but no.
The question is: is he so desperate, or doesn't he see a problem here? Is he conservative himself, or is he playing real politik?

It isn't about "keeping the outside the church." The Pope takes his calling seriously, and really believes the doctrine that excommunication bars the target from heaven. I believe he sees that excommunication should be reserved for those who deny the primary virtues of the Church (divinity of Christ, redemption, etc) and not for those who believe idiotic and repulsive tripe. "Real politik" would be bashing the guy for holocaust denial and grandstanding on that issue.